The Supreme Court on Thursday took strong exception to Telangana chief minister A. Revanth Reddy’s reported comments that BRS legislator K. Kavitha got bail in cases registered against her by the ED and the CBI in connection with the alleged ₹100-crore Delhi excise policy scam because of a deal with the BJP.

“Have you read what he (Reddy) said? Just read. Such statements by a responsible person like the chief minister might rightly create apprehensions in somebody’s mind,” Justice B.R. Gavai, heading a three-judge bench, told senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi
appearing for Reddy.

The bench asked: “Should a person holding a constitutional post make such a statement? Why should they drag the court in a political rivalry?”

Reddy had drawn the ire of the top court following his purported statement to the media on Wednesday that Kavitha got bail on August 27 as part of a deal between the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) and the BJP. The chief minister had also alleged that the BRS worked for the BJP’s victory in the state during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

Besides attributing motives behind Kavitha’s bail, Reddy also sought to draw a comparison with the continued custody of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and then deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, who is out on bail after spending 15 months in connection with the same excise policy case.

According to the CBI and the ED, Kavitha is the kingpin of the ₹100-crore scam as she headed the “southern” lobby for the cartelisation of the liquor trade in Delhi and as quid pro quo, kickbacks worth ₹100 crore were paid to the Kejriwal-led AAP which utilised the “tainted” money to fight the Goa elections.

On Thursday, the bench, which also had Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, adjourned the hearing of a petition filed by four BRS legislators seeking transfer of the trial relating to the ₹50 lakh “cash-for-vote” scam in 2015 involving Reddy from Telangana to Madhya Pradesh for further hearing on Monday.

The court observed that Reddy as a responsible constitutional functionary must know the doctrine of mutual respect, saying: “How can anyone say we (court) pass order for political reasons? “Will we pass orders after consulting any political party?”

A visibly annoyed Justice Gavai said: “That should be a ground for which your proceedings should be transferred. We are not bothered about individuals, politicians or if somebody criticises our orders. We do our duty as per our conscience, as per our oath.”

The bench told Rohatgi: “If such is his (Reddy’s) conduct, let him face the trial outside, if he doesn’t have respect for the Supreme Court… the highest court of the country.”

Also appearing for Reddy, advocate Sidharth Luthra assured the bench that he would counsel the chief minister and convey the court’s anguish over his remarks. Reddy is alleged to have offered ₹50 lakh bribe to MLC E. Stephenson to either vote or abstain in favour of the TDP during the legislative council elections.