New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to decide within three months the disqualification petitions filed against ten Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs who defected to the Indian National Congress. The Court made it clear that undue delay in such matters defeats the purpose of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which aims to curb political defections.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice AG Masih criticised the Speaker for not acting expeditiously. “The question we ask is whether the Speaker has acted in an expeditious manner. Non-issuance of notice for a period of seven months cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be seen as expeditious action,” the Court observed.
The Supreme Court’s order comes in response to petitions filed by BRS leaders KT Rama Rao, Padi Kaushik Reddy and KO Vivekanand. The petitioners had challenged a Telangana High Court Division Bench ruling that nullified an earlier Single Bench direction to the Speaker to schedule the disqualification hearing within four weeks. Setting aside the Division Bench order, the apex court restored the Single Bench’s directive with a modified three month deadline.
In its sharp observations, the Court warned against allowing MLAs to delay proceedings. “If the MLAs attempt to protract the disqualification hearings, adverse inference can be drawn against them,” the bench stated. It also remarked that allowing such delays creates a situation akin to “operation successful, patient died”.
The Court reiterated that while Speakers act as tribunals under the Tenth Schedule, they do not enjoy constitutional immunity. The delay in action undermines the anti-defection law, introduced through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment in 1985, which was meant to preserve democratic integrity.
Referring to past judgments such as Kihoto Hollohan and Keisham Meghachandra Singh, the Court clarified that judicial orders can be issued to ensure expeditious action, though the Court cannot directly adjudicate disqualification matters.
In a significant observation, the bench urged Parliament to re-evaluate whether Speakers should continue to decide disqualification petitions. “It is for Parliament to consider whether this mechanism is effectively curbing political defections or if an alternative is necessary to safeguard democratic foundations,” the Court noted.
The Court also criticised Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s statement in the Assembly that no by-elections would be held even if BRS MLAs defected to the Congress. The bench expressed concern that such statements undermined the constitutional process.
Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram represented the petitioners, while Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the respondents. The verdict follows extensive hearings and oral observations where the Court questioned delays of over a year in initiating proceedings.
