Revanth Reddy moves Supreme Court to quash 2015 cash-for-vote FIR

Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy has approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the first information report in a 2015 cash-for-vote case, contending that the version of the Prevention of Corruption Act in force at the time did not treat the offering of a bribe as an offence.

Appearing before a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra submitted orally that Section 12 of the PC Act, which deals with abetment, applied only to the bribe-taker. He argued that offering a bribe to a public servant became an offence only after wide-ranging amendments to the statute in 2018, when the scope of abetment under Section 12 was expanded to cover all offences — both the giving and the taking of bribes.

Describing the matter as "a pure issue of law", Mr. Luthra advanced the plea on behalf of the Chief Minister.

The 2015 case

The case predates the 2018 amendments. Mr. Reddy, then a 45-year-old Deputy Floor Leader of the Telugu Desam Party, was accused of criminal conspiracy with a common intention under the Indian Penal Code and of abetment under the PC Act.

He was allegedly recorded on camera in May 2015 offering ₹50 lakh as part of a ₹5-crore "payment", described as a token gesture aimed at securing the vote of the Anglo-Indian nominee, Elvis Stephenson, for a TDP candidate in the Telangana Legislative Council elections due in June 2015.

Counsel further submitted that the charge under Section 12 of the PC Act was not made out because an MLA voting in MLC elections under Article 171 of the Constitution was not performing an "official act" under the anti-corruption law.

According to the written submissions filed by advocate-on-record Lzafeer Ahmad, the argument is that an MLA casting a vote to elect MLCs exercises a franchise in an ex officio capacity and therefore falls outside the scope of Section 7 of the pre-amended Act. An MLA, the submissions state, is merely one category of voter or electorate for MLC elections, and Article 171 treats being an MLA only as an eligibility criterion for electing one-third of the Council's members. Their official capacity qualifies them solely as an "elector" under that Article, it was argued.

Mr. Luthra also said the FIR suffered from several inconsistencies, pointing to the absence of a General Diary entry and alleging that the investigation was tainted. The proceedings, he submitted, are politically motivated and marked by malafide, and therefore deserve to be quashed.