Today, On 25th March, The Supreme Court is deliberating whether a High Court can direct an Assembly Speaker to act within a specific time frame. The issue arose in a case where the HC had set a deadline for the Speaker’s decision on a matter. The SC is examining the constitutional limits of judicial intervention in legislative processes. A ruling on this could have significant implications for the separation of powers.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court considered whether a high court could instruct a legislative assembly speaker to act within a specific timeframe regarding pleas for disqualification of lawmakers.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih was hearing arguments about the alleged delay by the Telangana Assembly Speaker in addressing petitions for the disqualification of certain BRS MLAs who defected to the Congress party.
Also Read: “Courts Cannot Impose a Deadline on the Speaker to Accept or Reject MLA Resignations”: HC
The bench noted,
“We are not delving into the merits of the case. We are focusing solely on whether a high court can direct the speaker to act in accordance with the law within a specified period when the speaker fails to exercise his jurisdiction,”
One of the petitions before the Supreme Court challenges the November 2024 ruling of the Telangana High Court regarding disqualification requests for three BRS MLAs who joined the ruling Congress party. Another petition concerns seven additional legislators who also defected.
In its November ruling, a division bench of the high court stated that the assembly speaker must decide the disqualification petitions against the three MLAs within a “reasonable time.”
This verdict followed appeals against a September 9, 2024, order from a single judge, who had directed the Telangana Assembly secretary to promptly present the disqualification petitions to the Speaker and schedule a hearing within four weeks.
During the proceedings, senior advocate C.A. Sundaram, representing BRS leader Padi Kaushik Reddy, emphasized the fundamental question of whether a constitutional court has the authority to compel a constitutional authority to act in accordance with its constitutional duties.
He asserted,
“The Constitution stands above all of us, and it is the court’s responsibility to ensure adherence to the Constitution.”
Sundaram argued that it would be a grave miscarriage of justice to suggest that a court lacked the power to ensure an authority acts constitutionally.
The bench remarked,
“The issue is quite narrow whether the single judge was justified in asking the speaker to set a schedule within four weeks,”
It indicated that the Supreme Court would also assess whether the division bench was correct in intervening with the single judge’s order.
Justice Gavai noted that the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which addresses disqualification due to defection, was enacted to prevent the phenomenon of “Aaya Ram Gaya Ram.”
The court’s discussions on the matter are set to continue on April 2. On March 4, the Supreme Court requested responses from the Telangana government and others regarding the pleas, emphasizing that “timely decisions are crucial and stating that there cannot be a situation where the operation is successful but the patient is dead.”
The bench highlighted that the disqualification requests “cannot be allowed to linger until the end of the assembly session.”
Notices were issued to the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly, the assembly secretary, and the Election Commission, along with requests for responses from MLAs Danam Nagender, Venkata Rao Tellam, and Kadiyam Srihari.
Also Read:
During a hearing on February 10, the Supreme Court remarked that in a democracy, the rights of a party must not be allowed to be undermined. It inquired about what constitutes a “reasonable time” for the Telangana Assembly Speaker to decide on disqualification petitions.
Counsel for the petitioners cited a previous ruling by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which stated that “reasonable time” should typically mean within three months, barring exceptional circumstances.
The petitioners BRS MLAs K.P. Vivekanand and P. Kaushik Reddy, along with BJP floor leader in the Assembly, Alleti Maheshwar Reddy had approached the high court for a directive to the Speaker to resolve the pending disqualification petitions.