The Supreme Court of India has once again reprimanded Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy over his controversial statements made on the Floor of the House. The court questioned whether it had made a mistake by not issuing a contempt notice against him earlier when he commented on the Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to BRS leader K Kavitha.
Previously, the Supreme Court had taken serious note of the CM’s remarks where he stated that there would be no bye-elections in Telangana, even if BRS MLAs switched sides to the Congress party. The court observed that such statements made a “mockery of the tenth schedule” of the Indian Constitution.
The case pertains to multiple petitions urging the Telangana Assembly Speaker to make a timely decision regarding the disqualification of certain MLAs who defected from the BRS party to the ruling Congress party in the state.
During the hearing, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was informed by Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, representing the petitioners, about the CM’s statements in the Assembly. Sundaram highlighted that a BRS MLA had cautioned against discussing Supreme Court proceedings since the matter was sub-judice. However, the CM insisted that he had the right to express his views.
Quoting the CM’s statement in the House, Sundaram said:
"Mr. Speaker, I am telling on your behalf, to everyone present in the Assembly that they need not worry about any bye-elections in future. No bye-elections will come. There will be no bye-elections even if the opposition MLAs want a bye-election. It won't happen. Whether they come here, or stay there, there will be no bye-elections."
When the BRS MLA reiterated that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, the CM responded:
"Harish Rao [...] reminded us that the case is sub-judice before the Supreme Court. If I speak inside the House, there is some protection. But those who speak outside do not have any protection. This House is immune for certain laws. We can mention some things in the House. There is a protection under your leadership. There is a saying that bye-elections will be held next week or the other week. This is all nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Nothing is going to happen. Nothing is going to change. And no one needs to worry. There is no need to focus on bye-elections."
Sundaram criticized the Telangana Assembly Speaker for remaining silent while the CM claimed to be speaking on his behalf. Expressing his concerns, he stated:
"How can I reasonably expect him to finish this matter? The Speaker should have said, ‘Please don't speak on my behalf. I am not subscribing to this.’ But he keeps quiet. How can I expect the Speaker to decide in a reasonable time?"
Dismissing the CM’s remarks, Justice Gavai questioned Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Telangana Assembly Speaker and Secretary:
"Having experience on an earlier occasion, was the CM not expected to exercise some degree of restraint? Did we commit a mistake by letting you go at that time and not taking action for contempt? If this is the manner... separation of powers... We are not bothered about what politicians say, but when the person has already faced a similar circumstance... not even a year has passed."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Issues Stay on Tree Felling in Kancha Gachibowli, Directs Urgent Inspection
Justice Gavai emphasized that while the Supreme Court exercises self-restraint, the same is expected from the executive and legislative branches of the government.
Singhvi, while not representing the CM, contended that the transcript of the CM’s speech was being read selectively. He claimed that there were provocations from the opposition in the House. However, when he sought time to provide the full transcript, Justice Gavai pointed out that the petitioners had already submitted the complete record.
Unwilling to allow distractions in the proceedings, the court directed Singhvi to continue his legal arguments. After hearing both sides, the court reserved its order on the matter.
Case Title: PADI KAUSHIK REDDY Versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025 (and connected cases)
