MLA Poaching case: No error committed in investigation by SIT, State tells High Court

Counsels representing the State argued that the single judge's order transferring the investigation to the CBI and quashing the SIT was 'unsustainable'

Hyderabad: Counsels representing the State in its appeal against the transfer of the MLA poaching case argued in the High Court on Thursday that the Special Investigation Team constituted by the State government had committed no error in its investigation, and that the single judge’s order transferring the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation and quashing the SIT was ‘unsustainable’.

The two judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N Tukaramji, who on Thursday heard Supreme Court senior counsel Dushyant Dave representing Telangana State in the case, adjourned the case to Friday for further hearing.

---

The State had filed the appeal challenging the single judge order in transferring the MLA poaching case investigation to CBI. Dave said while the writ court has a wide jurisdiction, the single judge had dealt the matter in a narrow scope. He pointed out that leakage of evidence was considered as base for suspecting the investigation. After the case was registered and evidence was submitted to the court in the last week of October, the Chief Minister’s press conference was held on November 3, Dave pointed out and said once the material was placed before a court, it becomes public document.

As Chief Minister of the State, it was his duty to bring before millions of voters the undemocratic acts committed by the Bharatiya Janata Party to destabilise and dethrone the Bharat Rashtra Samithi government. When the BJP has a track record of destabilising eight State governments, the head of a State’s ruling party cannot be expected to be silent on the issue, Dave said. Other Chief Ministers also held press conferences when their governments were attempted to be destabilised by the BJP, he said, adding that the Telangana Chief Minister had reached out to the people of India through the media and there was nothing wrong in that.

Dave further contended that the court did not had the power to quash the investigation. Moreover, only the BJP and the accused had sought for transfer of investigation. The SIT, constituted of independent and high rank officers, had committed no error, but the judge even went to the extent of quashing the SIT constitution without there being any pleading. Without the ratification of the State, cases cannot be transferred to the CBI and it was well established that investigation can be transferred only in the rarest of rare cases only, Dave argued.

The SIT was functioning independently. The single judge’s narrow approach in transferring investigation, quashing the SIT and the investigation based on leakage of evidence by the Chief Minister was unsustainable, he argued, and pointed out that through the trap laid by the police, it was well established that there was an attempt to destabilise the ruling party. The reasons based on which the investigation was transferred were ‘bad in law’, he said.

Senior Counsel Gandra Mohan Rao, representing complainant Pilot Rohit Reddy said the complainant was threatened to join the BJP or face the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI. The ED was already behind him, and now the investigation was transferred to the CBI raising serious apprehensions, he said, pointing out that the right to fair investigation was not applicable not only to the accused, but to the victims and complainant as well.

DV Seetharam Murthy, senior counsel appearing for the three prime accused in the case, made submissions supporting the order of the single judge. He said the judge had passed the order only after reasonable satisfaction about the apprehension of unfair investigation. The judge had rightly exercised criminal jurisdiction in a writ petition by quashing the proceedings of investigation and argued that when such jurisdiction was exercised, the State has to appeal only in the Supreme Court and not in the High Court.