Supreme Court condemns Telangana CM Revanth Reddy's claim of BJP-BRS 'deal' behind Kavitha's bail

The Supreme Court on Thursday (August 29) criticised Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy for his comments on grant of bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in the Delhi liquor policy case, suggesting that it was due to a "deal" between ex-chief minister K Chandrasekhar Rao's party and the ruling BJP.

The court said that these comments could harm court's image in public eyeand raise doubts. A three-judge bench, led by Justice B R Gavai, comprising Justices P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan, asked Reddy's lawyer, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, “Have you seen what he said in the newspapers? What kind of statement is this from a responsible chief minister? Such remarks might rightly create apprehension among the people. Is this how a constitutional official should speak?”

The bench added, “Why should political rivalries involve the court? Do we issue orders based on consultations with political parties? We are not concerned with political criticism of our decisions. We act according to our conscience and oath.”

The judges said, “We have always stated that we do not interfere in legislative matters, and we expect the same from others. Do we issue orders based on political considerations?”

The Supreme Court was considering a petition to transfer the trial of the 2015 cash-for-vote scam case, where Reddy is an accused, from Telangana to Bhopal.

Reddy had suggested there were suspicions about why MLC Kavitha was granted bail within five months, while Manish Sisodia got reprieve in 15 months and Arvind Kejriwal is still awaiting bail. Reddy told reporters, “It is evident that BRS supported BJP’s victory in the 2024 LS elections. There are also claims that Kavitha’s bail resulted from a deal between BRS and BJP.”

K Kavitha, daughter of ex-Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, was granted bail by the Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 28).

“Investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. The custody of the appellant (Kavitha) is not necessary. She has been behind bars for five months. The likelihood of trial being concluded in near future is impossible. As said in various pronouncements of this court, under-trial custody should not turn into a punishment,” the bench said in its order.

(With inputs from agencies)