Presiding over the bench, Justice B R Gavai said, “Having experienced it on an earlier occasion, was your Chief Minister not expected to at least exercise some degree of restraint? So did we commit a mistake by letting him off that time, not taking action for contempt”.

As Senior Advocate A M Singhvi made submissions on behalf of the Assembly Speaker, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, appearing for the petitioners, once again referred to the Telangana CM’s statement. Singhvi said Reddy’s remarks may have been in response to “provocations” by the other side, which repeatedly referred to the matter coming up in the Supreme Court.

Sundaram said a BRS MLA only said that matters pending before the SC should not be discussed, but Revanth Reddy said “aid to the CM that Supreme Court proceedings should not be discussed, as the matter is sub-judice, but the chief minister responded that “we have a right to say what we want”.

Sundaram read out the English translation of Reddy’s statement. “Mr. Speaker, I am telling on your behalf, to everyone present in the Assembly that they need not worry about any bye-elections in future. No by-elections will come. There will be no by-elections even if the opposition MLAs want a bye-election. It won’t happen. Whether they come here or stay there, there will be no by-elections,” he quoted Reddy as having said.

The BRS legislator also urged that the matter be not discussed as it was pending before the Supreme Court. To which the CM replied, “Harish Rao…has 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 bye-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 bye-elections”.

Justice Gavai then asked Singhvi if Reddy should not have shown some restraint, given past experience.

The reference apparently was to the hearing on the plea seeking transfer of trial in a 2015 cash-for-vote case against Reddy from Telangana to Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, in August last year. The court was then apprised that Reddy, while commenting on the grant of bail by the Supreme Court to BRS leader K Kavitha in the alleged Delhi excise policy scam case, had suggested a “deal between the BRS and BJP”. The apex court criticised this, following which Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who then appeared for Reddy, tendered an apology.

As Singhvi sought to explain, Justice Gavai added, “We are not reacting. We are not bothered about what politicians said, but when the person already having faced similar circumstance, not even a year has gone by… We exercise self-restraint. We respect the other two wings of democracy. Same is expected of the other two wings also.”

Sundaram said, “In fact, my concern is now, when the Speaker is there and the CM saying ‘I am saying on your behalf Mr Speaker’, Mr Speaker keeps quiet, doesn’t say anything. How can I reasonably expect him to finish this matter?… The Speaker, at least, should say ‘please don’t speak on my behalf.’ ‘I am not subscribing to this’. But he keeps quiet… How can I expect the Speaker to decide in reasonable time?”

Singhvi said the petitioners had read the transcript selectively, and said he would produce the complete transcript. However, Justice Gavai pointed out that the petitioners, too, had placed the complete transcript.