The Supreme Court has taken a firm stance on the defection of three MLAs from the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) to the ruling Congress party in Telangana. During a recent hearing, the apex court noted that observations made in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra strengthen the petitioners' case. The court also pointed out that the Telangana High Court’s Division Bench may have misinterpreted legal precedents on the issue.
In Subhash Desai, the Constitution Bench ruled that the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a "reasonable period." When delays continued, the Supreme Court stepped in to set strict timelines. Drawing a parallel, Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih, presiding over the BRS MLAs’ case, adjourned the matter to April 2 after hearing both parties' arguments.
Read Also:- SC Issues Notice in Contempt Case Over Demolition of House After Alleged 'Anti-India' Slogans During Indo-Pak Match
Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, representing the petitioners, emphasized that the defecting MLAs actively campaigned for Congress. One of them, despite losing a Lok Sabha election on a Congress ticket, still held a BRS MLA position. Sundaram noted that despite complaints dating back to March 2024, the Speaker had not issued even a notice regarding the disqualification petitions until September 9, 2024.
"The facts are glaring—no action was taken for months, and the Speaker remains silent on the matter," Sundaram stated.
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the delay but clarified that it was examining whether a High Court could direct a Speaker to act within a specific timeframe under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Sundaram raised a critical constitutional question: "Can a constitutional court ensure that a Speaker fulfills his mandate, or must democracy tolerate indefinite inaction?"
Read Also:- Supreme Court Criticizes Senthil Balaji's Counsel for Raising "Technical Defence" in Bail Recall Plea
His arguments included:
- "If no timeframe is specified in the rules, does the Speaker have unchecked discretion?"
- "Judicial review typically applies to past actions, but here we request a mandamus compelling the Speaker to act."
Citing key rulings such as Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, and Subhash Desai, Sundaram contended that indefinite delays in disqualification petitions should not be protected under the Speaker’s procedural immunity.
Justice Gavai remarked, "If courts can order that disqualification petitions be decided within a ‘reasonable period,’ they can also define what that period should be."
He further noted that courts intervene in urgent cases, such as preventing executions or demolitions, to ensure justice is served.
Debate Over Speaker’s Role
Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu pointed out that the Telangana Assembly Secretary, not the Speaker, filed the counter-affidavit in this case. Justice Gavai dismissed this concern, explaining that it is standard practice for a court registrar to file counters on behalf of a court.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Criticizes Punjab Government Over Absence of Lawyers in Court Cases
Naidu, however, argued,
"The Assembly Secretary has not explicitly stated that the counter was filed on behalf of the Speaker. The Speaker himself is avoiding responsibility. If he continues to delay, shouldn’t a constitutional court have the authority to intervene?"
Justice Gavai responded,
"The court can certainly request the Speaker to act."
The Supreme Court clarified that it was not ruling on the merits of the case but rather addressing the procedural issue of timely disqualification decisions. The petitioners urged the court to set a four-week deadline for the Speaker’s decision, but the bench reserved judgment on imposing a strict timeline.
"We are prima facie of the view that certain observations in Subhash Desai support your case... The Telangana High Court’s Division Bench may have misinterpreted these legal precedents," Justice Gavai observed.
With the next hearing scheduled for April 2, the Supreme Court’s final stance will be crucial in determining the Speaker’s constitutional obligation to act within a reasonable timeframe.
Case Title: PADI KAUSHIK REDDY Versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025 (and connected case)
