New Delhi, Apr 3 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Thursday once again called out Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy over his statements made on the floor of the House, questioning whether it had erred in not issuing a contempt notice earlier when he commented on the Court’s decision to grant bail to BRS leader K Kavitha.

This comes a day after the Court strongly objected to the CM’s statement, made in the presence of the

Telangana Assembly Speaker, asserting that no by-elections would take place even if BRS MLAs defected to the ruling Congress party.

The Court had remarked that such statements made a "mockery of the Tenth Schedule" of the Constitution.

The issue arose during the Court’s hearing of petitions seeking a timely decision by the Telangana Assembly Speaker on disqualification pleas concerning the defection of certain BRS MLAs to the Congress.

During today's proceedings, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and A G Masih was informed by Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, appearing for the petitioners, that during the Assembly session, a BRS MLA cautioned the CM against discussing Supreme Court proceedings as the matter was sub-judice.

However, the CM asserted that "we have a right to say what we want."

Sundaram read out the CM’s remarks in the House: "Mr Speaker, I am telling on your behalf, to everyone present in the Assembly, that they need not worry about any by-elections in future. No by-elections will come. There will be no by-elections even if the opposition MLAs want a by-election. It won't happen. Whether they come here or stay there, there will be no by-elections."

When the BRS MLA pointed out that the matter was before the Supreme Court and should not be discussed, the CM reportedly replied: "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 from certain laws. We can mention some things in the House. There is a protection under your leadership. There is a saying that by-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 by-elections."

Sundaram criticized the Speaker’s silence, arguing that he should have disassociated himself from the CM’s statement. “How can I reasonably expect him to resolve this matter fairly? The Speaker should have said, ‘Please don’t speak on my behalf; I do not endorse this.’ But he kept quiet. How can I expect the Speaker to decide in a reasonable time?” he questioned.

Expressing disapproval, Justice Gavai asked Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for the Telangana Assembly Speaker and Secretary, “Having faced a similar situation earlier, was the CM not expected to exercise some degree of restraint? Did we make a mistake by letting him go last time and not taking action for contempt?"

Justice Gavai said, "If this is the approach, separation of powers... We are not concerned with political statements, but when a person has already faced a similar issue, and not even a year has passed…”

The judge further noted that while the Supreme Court exercises self-restraint, the same is expected from the other two branches of democracy.

Although Singhvi was not representing the CM, he argued that the transcript was being selectively read and that there had been provocations from the opposition.

When he sought time to present the full transcript, Justice Gavai pointed out that the petitioners had already submitted the entire text.

Ensuring that the hearing remained focused, the bench directed Singhvi to proceed with his submissions on the legal aspects of the case.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court reserved its orders on the matter.

UNI SNG SS