HYDERABAD: Requesting an instant stay of the judgement of a single judge handing over the investigation of the BRS MLAs poaching case to the CBI, Dushyant Dave, senior counsel from the Supreme Court, on Thursday told a bench of the Telangana High Court that the single judge court passed such an order despite that the SIT conducting the probe in the most scientific manner possible.
“Despite the fact that the petitioners never requested that the SIT investigation be quashed, the single judge dismissed the inquiry. The SIT had acquired all of the audio and video chats from the Moinabad farmhouse and sent them to FSL for authentication, but the probe was still halted by the single judge,” Dave argued.
Not rarest of rare: Sr Counsel
He reminded the bench that the Supreme Court had in many cases stated that the investigation into a particular case should be transferred to the CBI in the rarest of rare cases. “There was no such aspect in this case. No other investigating agency can investigate the case in the State under Section 6 of the Delhi Police Act, and if the High Court directs the CBI to investigate this case, it will affect the federal structure of the country, as the BRS is an elected government,” he said.
Dave said that the single judge’s order will affect more than 3 crore voters in the State. “If the CBI takes over the probe, the State’s appeals will be rendered ineffective,” he said. Senior counsel told the court that the single judge’s decision was a jumble of inconsistencies. “The police have every right to investigate a case, and when the investigation was proceeding properly, the single judge quashed it, in contravention of Supreme Court orders, which stated that investigations should not be scuttled, especially in this case, when the investigation was in its early stages,” Dave said.
Order hints mistrust in police
He said that by handing over the inquiry to the CBI, the single judge has indicated utter mistrust in the State police. “The audio and video clearly captured the offenders red-handed as they plotted to destabilise the lawfully elected BRS government. The defendants had a WhatsApp chat, their images with prominent BJP leaders were submitted before the court, and this element might have produced some seriousness in the single judge’s judgement,” senior counsel said. He reminded that the BJP made no mention of the FIR in its plea.
Despite the fact that the BJP, which filed one of the writ petitions before the single judge, didn’t initially request a CBI inquiry, the single judge still handed the matter over to the Central agency, Dave said, highlighting the fact that none of the petitioners who appeared before the single judge requested the revocation of the GO that established the SIT.
CM’s presser not illegal
“The chief minister holding a press conference and releasing audio and video of the accused while luring Rohith Reddy, the complainant, was legitimate, the single judge stated in the judgement at one point, but afterwards claimed that the entire collection of audio and video was obtained illegally,” Dave reminded.
Because all of the accused - BL Santosh, B Srinivas, Tushar and Jaggu Swami - appealed to the High Court and obtained a stay on notices served under 41A Cr.PC, the BJP and all of the accused before the single judge are in tandem. They were protected by the BJP, therefore they never came before the SIT, Dave said.
Senior counsel briefed the court that the BJP at the federal level has overthrown governments in eight States. “The BJP sought to replicate this in Telangana, but it was foiled there. These three defendants approached the complainant on their own and the chief minister never asked them to speak with Rohith Reddy,” he said.
Rohith aware of risks
Gandra Mohan Rao, senior counsel for Rohith Reddy, said that though the MLA knew well that the Central agencies under the BJP might come after him, he nevertheless filed a complaint against the three accused because he wanted to defend the elected BRS government.
Nandu Kumar, Ramachander Bharati and Simhyaji were represented by senior counsel DVV Seetharama Murthy who told the bench that Justice Vijaysen Reddy had made decisions on criminal jurisdiction based on allegations of malfeasance. “As a result, the Supreme Court should hear an appeal against that order rather than this bench. The single judge used his or her criminal jurisdiction in accordance with article 226,” Murthy said, requesting the bench to dismiss the State’s appeals as “they are not maintainable”.
When Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asked Dave if he had any objections to Murthy’s contention, the latter responded that if the order is passed on criminal jurisdiction side, then the order of the single judge should be suspended immediately because the BJP had not sought quashing of the FIR but only transfer of probe to CBI.
Dave said that three of the four MLAs accused of being recruited into the TRS (now BRS) were initially members of the Congress. The arguments would resume on Friday.