The Supreme Court rebuked Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy's remarks on issuing of bail to BRS MLC K. Kavitha.
"We read the CM's remarks in today's newspaper. Can such remarks be made by a responsible CM? Do we consult political parties or consider political issues while issuing orders," asked the Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
The transfer of vote-for-note to other state is being done for the same reason, the Bench said.
The hearing on the petition that Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy could influence the proceedings of the vote-for-note filed by former minister Guntakandla Jagadeesh Reddy was postponed to next Monday.
Initially, the Bench refused to transfer the case to another state. Instead, it said that it would appoint a prosecutor, in consultation with the Telangana and AP governments, to prove its impartiality and issue orders in the afternoon.
However, in the second session, the Bench became furious over Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy for his remarks in connection with BRS MLC K. Kvaitha's bail and made the following statements: "We do not consult political parties or consider the remarks made by the political leaders. We go by our intuition and discharge duties basing on the pledge taken by us. However, the attitude of a few people is reflecting their arrogant nature for which reason, we are not closing the hearing on the transfer petition. We have been iterating that we are not interfering into the legislative and executive intricacies. So, we expect the same from the other side too. The court issued notices to even the additional general secretary of Maharashtra government for making unwarranted remarks against the Supreme Court orders," Justice BR Gavai said.
Justice KV Viswanathan said: "It is the primary responsibility of the different systems to respect each other. Equal distance should be maintained and there should be mutual respect."
When senior advocate representing the government asked the judges if they had seen the announcement made by the Chief Minister, one of the Judges responded in the positive and said that such remarks were unfortunate.
Another senior advocate Siddhartha Luthra, representing the Telangana government, interfered and tried to defend the CM saying that his remarks were quoted inappropriately. Revanth Reddy only asked who were the beneficiaries in the Delhi Excise Policy Scam. The CM spoke about several issues and it could be that his quotes were misinterpreted.
Previously, Justice Gavai mentioned the name of senior advocate Uma Maheswara Rao hinting how would it be if he could be appointed as the public prosecutor.
Replying to this, Luthra said that he was a good advocate but reminded that he had appeared in the court as the advocate for the 5th accused.
Justice Gavai also felt that the present prosecutor Surender Rao also has a good track record. He even questioned Jagadeesh Reddy's advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu over why has the Telangana government lost credibility on the same advocate appointed by it in 2021. There is information that both the lawyers have good reputation. The hearing into the Delhi Excise policy case was stalled following stay orders issued by the Supreme Court and there is no fault of the prosecutor, Justice Gavai said.
Replying to this, Seshadri Naidu said that "Everybody should report to the Chief Minister and that is why there is some doubt."
Then Justice Gavai said public prosecutors need not report to Chief Ministers. Seshadri Naidu raised doubt about the police department too and observed that the CM himself was discharging the duties of the Home department and ACB. "He is the accused and prosecutor as well. There would be no issue if the court can ensure that police do not report to the CM."
Condemning this argument, Mukul Rohatgi said that such a clause would lead to unnecessary problem.
In this context, he suggested the names of Siddhartha Luthra and a young lawyer Avinash Desai's name.
Senior advocate Seshadri Naidu said that they would leave the issue of appointment of prosecutor to the Bench. "This is a trap case and there are forensic evidences too."
Replying to the argument, Mukul Rohatgi representing the Telangana government said that the case dated back to 10 years and that half of the allegations were proved wrong.
In the wake of the objection taken by the Justices against Revanth Reddy's remarks, he urged the court to postpone hearing to Monday.
In connection with the CM's remarks, the apex court said that such announcements would lead to doubts among many. Commenting about the bail issued by the Supreme Court means suspecting the court itself. Is it the way a person holding a Constitutional position should respond? Why are you pulling the judiciary into the allegations by political parties? If you do not have respect for the apex court and if the CM's would continue to be same, tell him to face the vote-for note case hearing in a different state.
