Justice B Vijaysen Reddy remarked that the petitioners had established a special case and were thus entitled to relief in their writ petitions. The Court also clarified that if no action was taken within four weeks, the matter would be reopened suo motu, and appropriate orders would be passed.
Telangana: On Monday(9th Sept), the Telangana High Court directed the Secretary of the State Legislative Assembly to present disqualification petitions against three Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leaders who defected to the Congress before Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar.
READ ALSO: Telangana High Court Invalidates Vithal’s MLC Election
Justice B Vijaysen Reddy highlighted that although arguments on the disqualification pleas concluded in August 2024, no information on their status had been provided.
The judge remarked that the petitioners had established a special case and were thus entitled to relief in their writ petitions. The Court also clarified that if no action was taken within four weeks, the matter would be reopened suo motu, and appropriate orders would be passed.
The bench, led by Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy, questioned,
“If the argument made by the learned Advocate General and senior counsel representing the respondents—that this Court can never direct the Speaker to resolve disqualification matters within a specific timeframe—is accepted, then the issue arises: how long should this Court tolerate the Speaker’s inaction or indecision?”
The case involved petitions filed by BRS MLAs Kuna Pandu Vivekananda and Padi Kaushik Reddy, along with Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Alleti Maheshwar Reddy. They were challenging the Speaker’s inaction regarding disqualification petitions against MLAs Venkata Rao Tellam, Kadiyam Srihari, and Danam Nagender, who had been elected on BRS tickets but later defected to the Congress.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that despite filing the disqualification petitions in April 2024, the Speaker had not received them. They claimed that this refusal by the Speaker or Secretary of the Assembly amounted to a neglect of duty and a violation of the constitutional mandate.
The State, on the other hand, contended that the writ petitions were not maintainable, arguing that the way the petitions were filed, coupled with unwarranted accusations against the Speaker, did not justify court intervention. The State’s counsel also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Kihoto Hollohan’s case, arguing that the disqualification petitions were not sustainable.
The Court dismissed the argument, stating,
“It cannot be argued that the Speaker can delay for five years, until the end of the House’s term, and the Court should refrain from intervening. Such an approach would violate the Constitutional mandate and undermine democratic principles. If the judgment in Kihoto Hollohan’s case is interpreted as suggested by the learned Advocate General and senior counsel, it could lead to a situation where no remedy would be available if the Speaker refuses to act on a disqualification petition.”
The Court also rejected the State counsel’s argument that the Speaker cannot be compelled to decide disqualification petitions within a set timeframe, observing,
“If the contention of the learned Advocate General and other senior counsel representing the respondents—that this Court cannot issue directions to the Speaker to resolve disqualification petitions within a specific period—is accepted, the question that arises is how long this Court should tolerate the Speaker’s inaction or indecision.”
Additionally, the Court rejected the State’s argument that the Speaker could not be instructed to decide the disqualification petitions within a specific time frame. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Keisham Meghachandra Singh’s case, which allows for directing the Speaker to resolve disqualification petitions within a set period.
In light of these observations, the High Court ordered the Speaker to address the disqualification petitions regarding the defected MLAs within four weeks.
Senior Advocates C Aryama Sundaram, Gandra Mohan Rao, Ramchander Rao, and Advocate Gummala Bhaskar Reddy represented the petitioners. The respondents were represented by Advocate General P Sri Raghuram and Senior Advocates Shankar Jandhyala, B Mayur Reddy, A Ravinder Reddy, K Pradeep Reddy, and Mohd Omer Farooq.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
