Telangana CM urges Supreme Court to quash 2015 cash-for-vote FIR

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

In this image posted on September 16, 2026, Telangana CM A. Revanth Reddy attends the eighth session of the Telangana Legislative Assembly, in Hyderabad, Telangana. | Photo Credit: X/@TelanganaCMO via PTI

Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy on Wednesday (September 16, 2026) sought the quashing of the first information report (FIR) in a 2015 cash-for-vote case, arguing in the Supreme Court that the pre-amendment version of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act had not considered the alleged offering of a bribe an offence at all.

Appearing before a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra argued orally that Section 12, which covered abetment of offences under the PC Act, only pertained to the bribe-taker.

It was only after large-scale amendments to the PC Act in 2018 that offering a bribe to a public servant was made an offence, and "abetment" under Section 12 included “all offences”, that is, both giving and taking bribes.

“This is a pure issue of law,” Mr. Luthra submitted.

In the 2015 case, which predates the 2018 changes in the PC Act, Mr. Reddy was accused of criminal conspiracy with a common intention under the Indian Penal Code and abetment under the PC Act.

The then 45-year-old Deputy Floor Leader of the Telugu Desam Party was allegedly caught on camera in May 2015, offering ₹50 lakh as part of a ₹5-crore “payment”. It was alleged to be a “token gesture” to secure the vote of the Anglo-Indian nominee, Elvis Stephenson, for a TDP candidate ahead of the Telangana Legislative Council elections due in June 2015.

Mr. Luthra further submitted that the charge under Section 12 of the PC Act was not made out, as an MLA voting in MLC elections under Article 171 of the Indian Constitution was not an ‘official act’ under the anti-corruption statute.

“The contention is that Section 12 of the PC Act is not made out on the basis that MLAs voting to elect MLCs is an exercise of franchise done in an ex officio capacity and therefore not an ‘official act’ under Section 7 of the pre-amended PC Act… An MLA is merely one of the categories of voters/electorates for the purposes of MLC elections… Article 171 envisages that being an MLA is an eligibility criterion to cast a vote to elect one-third of MLCs. Their official capacity only qualifies them as an ‘elector’ under Article 171,” the written submissions, filed by advocate-on-record Lzafeer Ahmad on behalf of Mr. Reddy, said.

Mr. Luthra said the FIR was riddled with several inconsistencies and pointed out that there was no General Diary entry and the investigation was tainted.

“The entire case and purported proceedings are politically motivated and plagued with malafide and therefore, deserve to be quashed,” Mr. Reddy’s counsel submitted.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.