2015 cash-for-vote case: SC directs CM not to interfere with functioning of prosecution

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed Telangana Chief Minister Anumula Revanth Reddy not to interfere in any way with the functioning of prosecution in the proceedings of the 2015 cash-for-vote case, in which he is one of the accused.

While refusing to transfer the trial in the case from Telangana to Bhopal, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said the director general of Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) would not report to the chief minister regarding prosecution of the case.

The apex court, which had earlier voiced strong displeasure over Reddy's comments on the top court granting bail to rival Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in cases linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam, said it was expected that all the three wings of the Constitution showed mutual respect for functioning of each other. The bench, while taking note that Reddy has tendered an apology in the court, said it did not wish to proceed further on the issue. "Though we do not wish to proceed further in the matter, we may only put on caution all the constitutional functionaries -- the legislature, the executive and the judiciary -- to discharge their constitutional duties in the spheres earmarked for them by the Constitution," it said.

"Such unwarranted comments unnecessarily bring about a friction. We may, therefore, only put a piece of advice that one should be careful enough while making comments about the orders passed by the courts," the bench said.

It said no doubt that right to fair criticism of the verdict was always welcomed but one should not transgress the limits.

The apex court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by BRS MLA Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and three others who had sought transfer of trial in the case from Telangana to Bhopal. The petitioners had claimed that no fair trial in the case was possible in Telangana with Reddy at the helm. They had said if a criminal trial was not free and fair, the credibility of the criminal justice system would undoubtedly be at stake, eroding the confidence of the common people in the system which would not augur well for society at large.

During the hearing on Friday, the counsel appearing for Revanth Reddy told the court that the plea seeking transfer of trial was filed with a political motive. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the chief minister, said the trial in the case was half-way through and the prosecution was being conducted by a prosecutor who was appointed by the erstwhile regime. The bench noted the petitioners have expressed concern that Revanth Reddy, who is also the state home minister, has a direct control over the ACB and the director of the bureau was directly answerable to him. “In order to allay that fear, we direct the respondent number two (Revanth Reddy) that he shall not in any way interfere with the functioning of the prosecution in the proceedings of which the transfer is sought,” the bench said.

Senior advocate CA Sundaram, appearing for the petitioners, said Revanth Reddy was also the home minister of the state and the ACB cases were directly under him. “Even if it (trial) is transferred outside Telangana, he will still be in-charge of the agency (ACB),” the bench observed, adding, “If he (Revanth Reddy) directs the prosecution to withdraw the prosecution, we are there to take care of that”.

The bench noted that while hearing the matter earlier, it had taken note of certain objectionable tweets by the chief minister. Noting that Revanth Reddy has already tendered an apology before it, the bench said, “In that view of the matter, we do not wish to proceed further in so far as that issue is concerned. The said issue stands closed”.

The bench noted that in the alternative, the petitioners had submitted that the prosecution in the case should be supervised by a retired judge of the apex court. “In so far as the prayer for entrusting the supervision of the prosecution to a retired judge of this court, we are not inclined to consider the prayer at this stage,” the bench said, adding, “The petition is only filed on the basis of apprehension. There is no foundational basis for such an apprehension”.

While disposing of the plea, it said the directions passed by the court will take care of an independent and fair trial in the proceedings. “In the event, in future, if the petitioners find that there is an interference by the respondent number two (Revanth Reddy) and if there is any foundational basis for the same, the court can always consider granting such a prayer,” it said.

On May 31, 2015, Revanth Reddy, then with the Telugu Desam Party, was apprehended by the ACB while allegedly paying bribe of Rs 50 lakh to Elvis Stephenson, a nominated MLA, for supporting TDP nominee Vem Narendar Reddy in the legislative council elections. Apart from Revanth Reddy, the ACB had arrested some others. All of them were later granted bail.

In July 2015, the ACB filed a charge sheet against Revanth Reddy and others for the alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The ACB had then claimed it has collected “clinching evidence” against the accused in the form of audio and video recordings, and recovered an advance amount of Rs 50 lakh.