Supreme Court Rebukes Telangana CM for Controversial Remarks
Last Updated on April 3, 2025 by NewsDesk SLC
The Supreme Court of India has once again criticized Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy for his remarks made in the state assembly, raising questions about whether the Court erred by not issuing a contempt notice previously. The CM’s comments, related to the Court’s decision to grant bail to BRS leader K Kavitha, prompted the bench to reconsider its earlier inaction.
The controversy unfolded during a hearing concerning disqualification petitions against several BRS MLAs who contemplated switching allegiance to the Congress party. The CM asserted that no bye-elections would occur, regardless of potential party shifts, effectively undermining the democratic process, which led Justice BR Gavai to query whether the Court had been too lenient in its response to the CM’s earlier statements.
During the session, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, representing the petitioners, highlighted that the CM had dismissed concerns regarding the ongoing Supreme Court proceedings, stating, “We have a right to say what we want.” This disregard for judicial authority was troubling to the justices, who emphasized the importance of maintaining respectful boundaries between the judicial and legislative branches of government.
Justice Gavai voiced disappointment over the CM’s lack of restraint, reflecting on a previous incident where similar unrestrained comments had been made. The judge expressed concern over political leaders demonstrating respect for the judiciary, noting, “We are not bothered about what politicians say, but they must recognize the separation of powers.”
Although the counsel for the Telangana Assembly Speaker sought to argue for the CM, it was clear that the Court expected better conduct from a leader in his position. The bench ultimately reserved its judgement on the case, demonstrating a commitment to uphold judicial respect and procedural integrity.
This incident not only highlights ongoing tensions between political leaders and the judiciary but also emphasizes the need for accountability and decorum within legislative discourse.
