In a significant development concerning the defection of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs to the ruling Congress party in Telangana, the Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over the prolonged delay in deciding the disqualification petitions. The Court observed that the Telangana High Court’s Division Bench had no valid reason to interfere with the Single Judge’s order, which had only directed the Assembly Speaker to set a timeline of four weeks to decide on the disqualification petitions.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih heard the case and pointed out that the Division Bench should not have overturned the Single Judge’s order.
"There was no justification for the Division Bench to interfere. The Single Judge had only asked the Speaker to frame a schedule within four weeks, not decide within that period. Why should there be an interference in such a simple directive?" – Justice Gavai
Read Also:- Waqf Amendment Bill 2025: Reforms and Controversies Surrounding Its Implementation
The Supreme Court also reiterated its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, emphasizing that it is not powerless against the inaction of constitutional functionaries.
"Be it any constitutional functionary, if the request or directions of this Court are not followed, this Court, under Article 142, is not powerless." – Justice Gavai
Arguments and Counterarguments
At the start of the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Telangana Speaker, argued that the Single Judge’s order was incorrect and that the Division Bench had rightly interfered. He stated that judicial review under Article 226 applies only after a decision is made.
"Judicial review applies once there is a ‘decision.’ Here, there is no final decision by the Speaker. Therefore, the courts cannot interfere at this stage." – Mukul Rohatgi
Justice Gavai responded sharply, questioning whether the Court should remain a silent spectator while democracy is undermined.
"Since there is no judgment yet, should this Court simply watch the naked dance of democracy? Should we tie our hands while the Speaker delays indefinitely?" – Justice Gavai
Read Also:- Advocate Cannot Be Summoned as Witness or Forced to Disclose Confidential Information: Kerala HC
Rohatgi further contended that under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, courts should not interfere before the Speaker's final decision. He cited several landmark cases, including Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, to support his stance.
However, Justice Gavai posed a crucial question:
"If the Speaker does not act at all for 4 years, should the Court remain powerless? If the Court cannot direct the Speaker under Article 226, does that mean it can do nothing while the process is stalled?" – Justice Gavai
Rohatgi defended the Speaker’s delay, stating that the matter was sub judice before the High Court. Justice Gavai countered this argument by pointing out the Speaker’s inconsistent approach.
"If the Speaker refrained from acting while the case was before the High Court, why did he act when it was pending before the Supreme Court? If that logic applies, issuing a notice while the matter is in the Supreme Court amounts to contempt." – Justice Gavai
Justice Gavai summarized Rohatgi’s argument as suggesting that even if the Speaker delays for years, the Court can only request action rather than direct it.
"Whichever way we decide, the Court will only be ‘requesting’ the Speaker, as you put it. But should constitutional provisions be allowed to be frustrated due to inaction?" – Justice Gavai
Read Also:- Baseless Allegations Of Communal Bias In Transfer Can Disrupt Administration: MP High Court
Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal, appearing for some of the respondent MLAs, argued that the reasonableness of the delay depends on the nature of allegations. He noted that disqualification cases often involve complex factual issues, making a fixed timeline difficult.
"Deciding whether 3, 6, or 9 months is reasonable depends on the complexity of the case. Some cases require extensive fact-finding, making an absolute timeframe impractical." – Gaurav Aggarwal
Justice Gavai, however, stressed the importance of judicial intervention in preserving democratic integrity.
"In our vibrant democracy, it is the directions of this Court that have maintained political purity. If Parliament has not acted on an issue, does that mean the Court should let constitutional objectives be defeated?" – Justice Gavai
Aggarwal argued that the issue falls within the legislative domain, and judicial interference could amount to reading into the Constitution. However, Justice Gavai maintained that the judiciary has a duty to prevent constitutional provisions from being undermined.
The case will continue, with Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Aryama Sundaram scheduled to present their arguments in the next hearing.
Case Title: PADI KAUSHIK REDDY Versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025 (and connected cases)