The Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it would appoint a special prosecutor to oversee the trial of the 2015 cash-for-vote scam, implicating Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy. The decision comes amid a hearing on a petition that seeks to transfer the trial from Telangana to Bhopal, citing concerns over fairness and impartiality due to Reddy’s significant political influence in his home state.
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, P K Mishra, and K V Viswanathan voiced their intent to deliberate with colleagues from Telangana before finalizing their order, which is scheduled for 2 pm. The bench is handling arguments from senior advocate C Aryama Sundaram, who represents Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLA Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy and three others. Sundaram argued for the trial’s relocation, pointing to the potential conflict of interest given Reddy’s roles as both the Chief Minister and Home Minister.
Highlighting the principle that “no person should be a judge in his own cause,” the bench emphasized the necessity of an independent public prosecutor to ensure a trial free from bias and undue influence. This move is seen as critical to maintaining public confidence in the judicial process, especially given the high-profile nature of the case.
Revanth Reddy, who was with the Telugu Desam Party at the time, was arrested by the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) on May 31, 2015, for allegedly offering a Rs 50 lakh bribe to nominated MLA Elvis Stephenson. This was purportedly in exchange for support for TDP nominee Vem Narendar Reddy in the legislative council elections. The charge sheet filed in July 2015 by the ACB under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, includes audio and video evidence supporting the allegations.
The plea for transferring the trial to Bhopal stems from concerns that Reddy’s current power positions could influence the proceedings and potentially compromise the testimony of prosecution witnesses. This petition highlights the overarching need for a trial that upholds the constitutional guarantee of fairness as laid out in Article 21, which is fundamental to the credibility of the criminal justice system.
