SC warns against unsavoury comments by public figures

The caution by a bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan came as it dropped proceedings against Telangana chief minister Revanth Reddy over contentious remarks, attributed to him and the Telangana Congress, that cast aspersions on the judiciary.

New Delhi The executive, legislature and judiciary must respect each other’s roles and avoid making derogatory remarks that could disrupt the functioning of democracy, the Supreme Court held on Friday, underscoring the need for restraint among constitutional functionaries.

The caution by a bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan came as it dropped proceedings against Telangana chief minister Revanth Reddy over contentious remarks. (PTI)

The caution by a bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan came as it dropped proceedings against Telangana chief minister Revanth Reddy over contentious remarks, attributed to him and the Telangana Congress, that cast aspersions on the judiciary.

The bench took note of Reddy’s apology and closed the proceedings against him, even as it warned public figures against making unsavoury comments about other branches of democracy.

“We do not wish to proceed further in the matter (of Reddy’s comment). We put in caution that all constitutional functionaries, be it the executive, legislature or judiciary, must perform their duties within their respective domains. Such unwarranted comments unnecessarily bring about friction, and we only advise that one should be careful while making comments about orders of this court, even as fair criticism is welcome,” the bench said, noting that unfounded allegations are detrimental to public trust.

The controversy surrounding Reddy’s remarks erupted last month, when he made comments that were seen as casting aspersions on the judiciary’s independence. Reddy’s statements came in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in the Delhi excise policy case.

The bench took cognisance of Reddy’s comments as it heard a petition filed by four BRS MLAs seeking to transfer the trial against Reddy in the 2015 cash-for-votes scam to a court outside Telangana. The plea argued that Reddy’s influence in Telangana could potentially hinder a fair trial, thus necessitating the transfer. The CM’s comments arose in the context of the 2015 corruption case in which he -- then an MLA of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) -- allegedly offered a ₹50 lakh bribe to secure a favourable vote in a legislative election.

Facing scrutiny from the top court, Reddy issued a statement of regret on August 30, expressing his “highest regard and full faith in the Indian judiciary”. He said that his comments had been taken out of context and reiterated his commitment to the judicial process. “I unconditionally express my regret for the statements reflected in the press reports. The remarks attributed to me in such reports have been taken out of context,” Reddy said.

During the hearing on Friday, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra, representing Reddy, submitted that a fresh apology was issued for the remarks made by the chief minister, rendering the matter infructuous.

Senior advocates CA Sundaram and DS Naidu, representing the BRS leaders, pressed for additional safeguards, arguing that a retired judge should be appointed as a special public prosecutor due to Reddy’s prior conduct.

The bench proceeded to close the proceedings against Reddy for his comments even as it issued specific directions to ensure a fair trial in the cash-for-votes case. It directed that Reddy must not interfere in the ongoing prosecution, emphasising that the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) director general of Police (DGP) should not report to him regarding the prosecution of the case. It also ordered that all documents related to the case be supplied to the special prosecutor appointed to oversee the trial.

Noting that the petition by BRS leaders seeking the transfer of the trial was based on apprehensions rather than substantiated evidence, the bench declined to set up a new special investigation team (SIT). It said, however, that the petitioners could revive their prayers before the court if they found any interference by Reddy in the prosecution.