Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of SC/ST Act Case Against Telangana CM Revanth Reddy

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld an order of the Telangana High Court closing a criminal case against Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A Chief Justice of India Surya Kant led bench rejected the petition filed by the complainant N Peddi Raju who approached the top court challenging the dismissal of the case by the high court in July 2025.

"We read in between lines, how these political battles take place,” observed the bench also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi and held that the view taken by the high court was both “possible and plausible”.

A case was filed against Reddy and others for offences under sections 3(1)(f)(g)(r) and (s) and 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste (Mala) who served as the Director of Razole Constituency S.C. Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad.

The complainant, associated with the SC Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Limited, alleged that Reddy had instigated his brother and others to trespass on the Society’s land in Gopanpally village and demolish two rooms using an earth-moving machine with the intention of occupying the property. It was also alleged that caste-based remarks were made against the complainant.

High Court held that the alleged insults and abuse directed at the de facto complainant, were not sufficient to implicate Reddy in the offence. 

"A dispute with regard to the possession of land is the subject matter of a civil dispute between parties. Any act of dispossession of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste would per se not amount to an offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act unless the person/victim is abused, intimidated or harassed solely on the ground that he/she belongs to a Scheduled Case or Scheduled Tribe. An offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act is not made out merely because the de facto complainant/informant belongs to a Scheduled Caste; there must also be a clear intention to humiliate the de facto complainant for that specific reason", the High Court had said.

High Court had further noted that no commission of offences punishable under section 3(1)(f)(g)(r) and (s) and section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act arose in the circumstances relating to Reddy. "The case sought to be made out in the Charge Sheet is hence without any factual or legal basis. Contrary to the sections mentioned in the Charge Sheet, the undisputed facts do not disclose commission of any offences mentioned in the Charge Sheet under the SC/ST (PoA) Act in relation to the petitioner/A.3. The inherent power under section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be exercised either to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The present case qualifies under both these yardsticks. In essence, no congnizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed against the petitioner in the Charge Sheet for the Court to permit the investigation to go on in the Sessions Case...", the single judge bench held.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court had closed a contempt case initiated against a litigant and lawyer who had filed a transfer petition, containing scandalous allegations against Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya for quashing the instant SC/ST Act case against Telangana CM Revanth Reddy.

In July last year, former CJI BR Gavai-led bench had issued show cause notices to the petitioner Peddi Raju and his lawyers, asking them why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them for their allegations against Telangana High Court judge, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya. As the counsel sought to withdraw the petition, court had dismissed his request. "This has happened for the first time..never happened in my life..", the counsel further submitted before the bench. Court then had asked the litigant to file an apology and said that it would consider whether the apology was genuine or not.

Highlighting the growing trend of making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a judge when they don't pass favorable orders, the bench also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran noted in its order, "Such a practice needs to be strongly deprecated. Majesty of law does not lie in punishment but forgiving when apology is made. Since the High Court judge has accepted the apology we do not intend to proceed further. With this apology is accepted and the contempt plea is closed."

Case Title: N PEDDI RAJU vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Pancholi

Hearing Date: February 17. 2026