HYDERABAD: Former Supreme Court judge Justice B Sudershan Reddy on Thursday strongly defended political analyst Prof Nageshwar and called for the withdrawal of cases filed against him, asserting that the controversy surrounding his recent political commentary should be brought to a close.
Speaking at a round-table meeting organised by the CPI in Hyderabad, the former judge said democratic societies thrive on debate, dissent and critical analysis. He warned against criminalising political commentary.
He said the central issue was not whether one agreed with Prof Nageshwar’s views but whether there was any factual error or objectionable content in his analysis.
Journalists, editors and political commentators routinely gather information from multiple sources and have a constitutionally protected right to analyse and interpret public affairs, he said.
“Freedom of expression under Article 19 is the foundation of all other liberties. Without it, the very idea of democracy loses meaning,” he observed.
Expressing concern over the filing of criminal cases against the political analyst, he described the move as an example of growing intolerance towards differing opinions.
He argued that public commentary and political analysis help citizens understand complex issues, form informed opinions and participate meaningfully in democratic discourse.
CPI MLA Kunamneni Sambasiva Rao argued that the issue had been unnecessarily escalated into an Andhra Pradesh-Telangana dispute despite Prof Nageshwar having already withdrawn the controversial remarks that triggered the row.
He criticised Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister and Jana Sena Party chief Pawan Kalyan’s response to the controversy, particularly his decision to visit Hyderabad around Telangana Formation Day and his remarks defending his right to conduct political activities in Telangana. He maintained that no major political party or Telangana leader had opposed his visit or political activities in the state.
He alleged that the controversy was being used to revive regional tensions between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh for political purposes.
‘An attempt to discourage critical analysis, public debate’
Prof Nageshwar said the controversy had evolved into a larger issue concerning constitutional rights and freedom of expression rather than an individual dispute. He described the cases filed against him as an attempt to discourage critical analysis and public debate. Prof Nageshwar said he had been writing and speaking on public affairs for decades and would continue to express his views without fear. He maintained that political analysis was based on information received from sources and that analysts should not be treated like political actors merely for interpreting political developments.
Congress MLC Addanki Dayakar and Telangana Jana Samithi chief and MLC M Kodandaram echoed similar views, arguing that criticism of Prof Nageshwar had gone beyond legitimate disagreement and had become an attack on democratic values.
They remarked that Pawan Kalyan’s approach towards the state appeared confrontational and was not conducive to healthy political discourse.