'We Understand Political Battles' : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Quashing Of SC/ST Case Against Telangana CM Revanth Reddy

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging the Telangana High Court's judgment which quashed a 2016 case against the present Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that the High Court has rightly quashed the case since no prima facie case was found to proceed against Reddy. The bench orally commented that it appeared to be a case of using the Courts for a "political battle."

The allegation was that upon alleged instigation by Reddy, other accused broke into the Razole Constituency S.C. Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and vandalised the society property with JCB trucks, and hurled casteist remarks at the complainant N Peddi Raju when he tried to stop the attack.

During the hearing, the bench orally commented that the case was only for "political mileage".

The counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the High Court did not consider Section 6 of the SC/ST Act, which penalises abetment of the offences.

"This is only for political mileage," CJI Kant commented. The petitioner replied that the case is from the year 2016, when Reddy was not a Chief Minister. The CJI then pointed out that Reddy was an active politician even then as well, being a Member of Parliament.

Justice Bagchi noted that there was no evidence linking Reddy to the crime, except for hearsay evidence. The only evidence is inferential, Justice Bagchi noted, highlighting that the petitioner's prior enmity against Reddy cannot be ignored.

The petitioner's counsel argued that actual presence in the crime scene is not necessary and an instigator is liable under Section 6 SC/ST Act and Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. He claimed that the High Court conducted a "min-trial" in the quashing petition, and went to the extent of commenting on the sufficiency of evidence, which was not warranted while exercising Article 226 jurisdiction.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, for Reddy, submitted that the petitioner was an "adventurous litigant" who has a history of filing vexatious cases. Luthra pointed out that the petitioner was last year reprimanded by the Supreme Court for making contemptuous remarks against the High Court judge, and was let off only after he tendered an apology to the High Court judge.

"We also understand and can read between the lines, and understand political battles," CJI Kant commented.

The petitioner's counsel asserted that it was not a "political battle" and contended that the Court has only to look at the evidence, regardless of the political actors involved.

The bench however dismissed the petition observing :

"After going through the impugned judgment, we find that the High Court has minutely considered the materials collected during the course of the investigation and rightly concluded that no prima facie case is made out for proceeding against respondent number 2 (Revanth Reddy). The view taken by the HC is plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case and no interference is called for"

Case : N PEDDI RAJU v.THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR.Diary No. 61734-2025