Excise policy scam: SC slams Telangana CM over comments on Kavitha’s bail

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, August 29

Piqued over Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy’s comments on the bail granted to BRS leader K Kavitha in the cases linked to the Delhi excise policy ‘scam’, the Supreme Court on Thursday said courts should not be dragged into political rivalry.

While hearing a petition seeking transfer of trial in the 2015 cash-for-vote case against Reddy to Bhopal, a Bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice PK Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan took strong exception to the Telangana Chief Minister’s statement that Kavitha got bail because of a deal between BRS and BJP.

“Why should they drag the court into political rivalry? Do we pass orders in consultations with political parties? We are not bothered by politicians or if anybody criticises our orders. We do our duty as per (our) conscience and oath,” the Bench told senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, who represented Reddy.

“Have you read in the newspaper what he said? Just read what he has stated. What sort of statement is this by a responsible Chief Minister? That might rightly create apprehension in the minds of people. Is this the kind of statement that a Chief Minister should make? A constitutional functionary is speaking in this manner? The Bench wondered.

Apologising to the Bench on behalf of Reddy and the Telangana Government, Rohatgi and senior counsel Siddharth Luthra said he would be counselled.

Indicating that it will appoint a special public prosecutor to conduct trial in the case, the Bench deferred the hearing of the case till Monday.

A Bench of Justice Gavai and Justice Viswanathan had on Tuesday granted bail to Kavitha in corruption and money laundering cases linked to the Delhi excise policy ‘scam’, saying her custody was not needed anymore as the probe was already over. But Reddy tried to give it a political colour.

Noting that such statements might create apprehensions in minds of people, the top court reminded Reddy that it’s the fundamental duty to have mutual respect for institutions and maintain arm’s length distance.

“We always say we will not interfere in the Legislature’s sphere, then it’s expected from them also. Do we pass orders on political considerations?” the Bench asked.