In the matter relating to the defection of ten BRS MLAs in Telangana to the Congress party, the Supreme Court on Thursday (July 31) directed the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to decide the petitions seeking their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution within a period of three months from today.

The Court observed that it cannot allow a situation of “operation successful, but patient died” by allowing the disqualification petitions to remain pending during the term of the assembly, allowing the defectors to reap the benefits of the delay.

Noting that the Speaker had not even issued notice on the disqualification petitions for nearly seven months, the Supreme Court observed :

“The question therefore we ask ourselves is whether the Speaker has acted in an expeditious manner. Expeditiousness was one of the reasons why the Parliament has entrusted the important task of adjudicating disqualification petitions to the Speaker/Chairman. Non-issuance of notice for a period of seven months and issuing notice only after either the proceedings were filed before this Court or after this Court has heard the matter for the first time can be, by any stretch of imagination, envisaged as acting in an expeditious manner.”

The Court said that the failure to issue directions to the Speaker in the facts and circumstances of this case would frustrate the very objective of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. “If we do not issue any directions, it will amount to allowing the Speaker to repeat the widely criticised situation of “operation successful, patient dead””, the Court observed.

The Court observed that the Speaker, while acting as a Tribunal under the tenth schedule, does not enjoy any “constitutional immunity”.

The Court also directed the Speaker not to allow the MLAs, who face the disqualification petitions, to protract the proceedings. If the MLAs make any such delaying tactics, adverse inference can be drawn against them, the Court added.

Allowing the petitions filed by BRS leaders KT Rama Rao, Padi Kaushik Reddy and KO Vivekanand, the Court set aside the judgment of the division bench of the Telangana High Court, which nullified the single bench direction to the Speaker to fix the schedule of hearing within four weeks.

A bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih delivered the verdict.

At the outset, the CJI referred to the statements and objections of the Constitution 52nd Amendment Act, introducing the anti-defection law, which was quoted as : “The evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy.”

The only purpose of entrusting the role of adjudication to the Speaker of the Legislature was to avoid delay tactics in the Courts of law and to ensure expeditious decisions on disqualification petitions before the end of the term of the assembly, the bench noted.

Referring to the ratio of the decision in Kihoto Hollohan (which upheld the tenth schedule), the Court noted that the powers of judicial review over the decisions of the Speaker were in a narrow compass; at the same time, it was also held that the decisions of the Speaker were not completely immune to judicial review.

It was also held in Kihoto Hollohan, while orders injuncting the Speaker from deciding the matters were not permissible, judicial orders which aid the expeditious decisions by Speakers were allowed. Also, the Constitution Bench never envisaged a situation where Speakers would keep disqualification petitions pending for years.

Reference was made to the judgment in Keisham Meghachandra Singh which held that Speakers must decide the disqualification petitions within three months. The Court also noted directions which were issued to the Maharashtra Speaker to decide the ShivSena and NCP defection petitions in a time-bound manner.

The Court however rejected the petitioners’ prayer that the Court itself should decide the disqualification petitions, referring to the precedents in Kihoto Hollohan and Subhash Desai.

Parliament urged to reconsider whether Speaker should be allowed to decide disqualification

The bench also urged the Parliament to reconsider whether the present mechanism of entrusting the Speaker/Chairman to decide disqualification petitions was conducive to curbing the menace of political defections.

“Though we do not possess any advisory jurisdiction, it is for the Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting the Speaker/Chairman the important task of deciding the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections or not. If the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it is to be examined whether the present mechanism is sufficient or not. At the cost of repetition, we observe that it is for the Parliament to take a call on that.”

Orders were reserved in the matter in April this year. While Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram led the arguments for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the respondent(s).

A key aspect of the hearings was the Court’s pointed query to the Telangana Legislative Assembly as to what would be a “reasonable period” for deciding the disqualification pleas filed against the defecting MLAs. In response to this, Singhvi, as an officer of the Court, had conceded that 6 months would constitute a “reasonable period”. However, he also said that at the ongoing stage, it would not be appropriate in the present cases to “short-circuit” the Speaker’s discretion.

In response to the contention that in the present cases, the “reasonable time”/”6 months” stage had not come, CJI Gavai had remarked, “though a period of more than 1 year and 2 months has passed, but the time has not come for this Court to intervene?”

The Court also orally observed that the Division Bench of the High Court had no reason to interfere with the Single Bench order which merely directed the Speaker to fix within 4 weeks a schedule for deciding the disqualification petitions. Further, it took strong exception to CM Revanth Reddy’s alleged statement on the Floor of the House that no bye-elections will take place even if BRS MLAs switch sides to the Congress party. The Court also expressed a prima facie opinion that certain observations in Subhash Desai lent support to the petitioners’ case and that the observations of the Telangana High Court (Division Bench) with regard to judicial precedents on the issue involved were incorrect.

Background

Three MLAs viz. Venkata Rao Tellam, Kadiyam Srihari, and Danam Nagender were elected on a BRS Ticket during the 2023 assembly polls, but defected to the Congress Party (ruling in Telangana). Questioning inaction of the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker for over 3 months, in deciding the disqualification pleas preferred against the MLAs who defected, BRS MLAs Kuna Pandu Vivekananda and Padi Kaushik Reddy, and BJP MLA Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, moved the Telangana High Court.

The petitioners before the High Court contended that the delay in deciding of the disqualification petitions could give the ruling party a chance to enable more defections from BRS. Counsel representing the defecting MLAs and State, on the other hand, questioned the maintainability of the petitioners’ writ petition, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the Speaker to decide upon the disqualification pleas.

On September 9, a Single bench of the High Court directed the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly to fix a schedule of hearing within four weeks to decide upon the disqualification pleas. Against this judgment, the Telangana Legislative Assembly (through its Speaker) preferred a writ appeal.

In November, 2024, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Single bench judgment and held that the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly must decide the disqualification petitions within a reasonable time.

Challenging the order of the Division bench (which set aside the direction to the Speaker to fix a schedule for hearing of the disqualification pleas within 4 weeks), MLA Padi Kaushik Reddy, and others, moved the Supreme Court.

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