Conspiracy vs conspiracy: Telangana High Court heats up with BJP, TRS arguments on Cash for MLAs SIT

The Telangana side of things

Senior counsel Dushyant Dave, appearing for the Telangana government, argued that the attempt to poach the MLAs was part of a larger conspiracy to bring down the current dispensation in the state.

He said the BJP, while claiming that it had nothing to do with the case, was filing petitions against the SIT. The hearing was adjourned to 6 December.

He said that if the BJP was in no way concerned with the attempt to poach the MLAs, it should not obstruct the investigation and on the contrary, should cooperate with the police.

Dave also claimed that the BJP was trying to water down the case since the beginning, and recalled how the party pulled down governments in several states by purchasing MLAs and taking them away to far-off places in flights. Such incidents took place in Goa, Maharashtra, and Karnataka, the counsel pointed out.

He maintained that Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao acted correctly by exposing the attempt to poach the MLAs as it was meant to pull the rug from under his feet.

That was the reason he informed the people through the media and also sent the evidence to courts.

The BJP arguments

Earlier, the BJP counsel Mahesh Jethmalani said it was necessary that the investigative agency conduct the probe in the most transparent manner, but it was not progressing on the desired lines.

The SIT was working under the direction and supervision of the Telangana government, he alleged.

He also said that though the evidence in regard to the case should not be leaked to anyone, the media was getting leaks all the time.

Jethmalani was referring to the judgments delivered by the high courts that set down rules on how an investigation should progress, but this was it was not moving in that direction.

He said it would be in the fitness of things if the case was transferred to the CBI for a proper and impartial investigation.

The high court decides

The high court, on a petition filed by one of the accused in the case — BDJS president Tushar Vellapally — asked him to cooperate with the SIT. Vellapally filed the petition seeking either annulling the SIT or entrusting the investigation to the CBI.

The court also ruled that he should not be arrested during questioning.

Tushar Vellapally. (South First)

Tushar Vellapally’s counsel argued that the police had listed him as accused after serving a notice to him to appear before them, and also issued a lookout notice.

In the petition that Vellapally filed, he listed KCR as a respondent in his individual capacity. He alleged that the SIT investigation was going in accordance with a political agenda.

Vellapally, in his petition, contended that the constitution of the SIT was illegal, arbitrary, and gravely in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He also sought orders transferring the investigation to CBI.

Vellapally’s counsel argued that though the petitioner pleaded that he was not well and sought time to appear before the SIT, he came to know that a lookout notice was issued to him without responding to his plea.

He contended that the issuing of the lookout notice damaged his reputation and caused him mental agony.