New Delhi: The Supreme Court has postponed its decision on the petition filed by Bharata MLA and former minister Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy, seeking to transfer his trial from Telangana to Madhya Pradesh. The petition raises concerns that Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy may influence the case.
Court Proceedings
On Thursday, the bench consisting of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashanthkumar Misra, and Justice KV Viswanathan initially rejected the petition to transfer the trial. Instead, the court decided to appoint a special prosecutor to ensure impartiality, with a decision expected to be announced later in the afternoon.
Chief Minister’s Comments
However, after the lunch break, the proceedings took an unexpected turn. Justices Gavai and Viswanathan expressed strong disapproval of CM Revanth Reddy’s recent comments regarding the bail granted to Bharata MLC Kavitha in the Delhi liquor case. They questioned whether such remarks were appropriate for a responsible Chief Minister and criticized any influence or interference in the judicial process.
Judicial Stance
The bench emphasized their commitment to performing their duties without political influence and stated they do not engage in legislative or executive affairs. They issued a notice to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Maharashtra Government in response to comments deemed headstrong. Justice Gavai further remarked that respecting judicial systems is a fundamental duty.
Reactions and Clarifications
Senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Telangana government, acknowledged seeing the Chief Minister’s statements but deemed them unacceptable. Siddhartha Luthra, another senior lawyer, intervened, suggesting the Chief Minister’s comments might have been misquoted or misunderstood. He emphasized that any questioning should focus on the beneficiary of the case rather than personalizing the issue.
Next Steps
The court will continue deliberations, considering the appointment of a special prosecutor to ensure a fair and unbiased trial process. The discussions underscore the judiciary’s resolve to uphold its impartiality amidst political scrutiny.
