The Supreme Court of India has reserved its verdict in the significant case concerning the defection of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs to the ruling Congress party in Telangana. The main issue revolves around the delay by the Telangana Assembly Speaker in deciding on disqualification petitions filed against these MLAs.

A two-judge bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih heard the matter and reserved the order after considering arguments from both sides. Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the respondents, while Aryama Sundaram argued for the petitioners.

"Article 226 is not just a power; it is power coupled with a duty to do complete justice."
— Justice B.R. Gavai

Read Also:- Supreme Court Questions Delay in Disqualification Petitions of BRS MLAs: "Should Court Tie Its Hands?"

Arguments by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi (Respondents’ Counsel):

• Singhvi emphasized that only in the case of Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly did the court set a timeline for the Speaker's decision on disqualification petitions. He argued that the case was unique and not applicable to the current situation.
• He claimed that other precedents, including Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya and Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Maharashtra, were not suitable for comparison, either because of different contexts or because those orders lacked the legal weight of precedents.
• When asked by Justice Gavai about what he considered a "reasonable period" for the Speaker to decide on disqualification matters, Singhvi hesitated at first. Eventually, he acknowledged that six months might be considered a reasonable time frame. However, he insisted this case wasn’t appropriate for court interference at this stage.

"Though a period of more than 1 year and 2 months has passed, the time has not come for this Court to intervene?"
— Justice B.R. Gavai, questioning the delay

• Singhvi also tried to justify the delay by stating the Speaker withheld issuing notices earlier due to the matter being under the High Court's consideration. But Justice Gavai pointed out the contradiction, noting that the Speaker later issued notices on January 16, 2025, while the case was still pending before the Supreme Court.

"You can't argue it both ways."
— Justice Gavai to Singhvi

Read Also:- Supreme Court: No Mandatory Preference for Overqualified Candidates in Job Selection

Arguments by Aryama Sundaram (Petitioners’ Counsel):

• Sundaram questioned the inconsistency in the respondents’ argument. On one hand, they claimed the courts can't fix a deadline for the Speaker. On the other hand, they admitted that a prolonged delay could qualify as an "exceptional circumstance."
• He argued that even the respondents conceded the Court isn’t entirely powerless and that it's a matter of fact and timing when courts can direct the Speaker to act within a deadline.

"I have a reasonable apprehension. I am requesting for a time-limit to decide the matter."
— Aryama Sundaram

• Sundaram also cited public statements made by Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy on the Assembly floor. The CM reportedly said there would be no bye-elections even if BRS MLAs joined Congress. These statements were made in the Speaker’s presence, and the Speaker’s silence added to the petitioners' concern.

Read Also:- Delhi HC Grants Partial Relief to Shazia Ilmi in Defamation Case, Fines Her for Suppressing Tweets

In earlier hearings, the Supreme Court had criticized the Telangana High Court’s Division Bench for interfering with the Single Judge’s order. The Single Bench had merely directed the Speaker to schedule hearings for the disqualification petitions within four weeks.

The Court also took a serious view of CM Revanth Reddy’s statement that no bye-elections would occur, which raised questions about the Speaker’s impartiality and the political implications of the delay.

“Had you accepted the just order of the Single Judge, there was no occasion for the Division Bench to pass such an unjust order, which requires us to interfere.”
— Justice Gavai

Case Title: PADI KAUSHIK REDDY Versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025 (and connected cases)