Telangana CM Revanth Reddy remarked “The Chief Minister on 26th March in the Assembly told the members that ‘I assure you through the Speaker that there will be no by-elections whether you switch sides’ … it is an Assembly proceeding.”
NEW DELHI: 2nd April: The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticized Telangana Chief Minister (CM) Revanth Reddy for his controversial statement in the State Legislative Assembly.
The Congress leader allegedly assured members of the opposition Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) that there would be no bye-elections even if they switched sides to the ruling Congress party.
A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih took serious note of the CM’s remarks and said:
“If this is said on the floor of the house, your Hon’ble CM is making mockery of the 10th Schedule (anti-defection law).”
This comment came while the Supreme Court was hearing a case related to the disqualification petitions of three Telangana MLAs—Venkata Rao Tellam, Kadiyam Srihari, and Danam Nagender. These legislators were elected on a BRS ticket but later joined the Congress party.
In November 2024, a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court had directed the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to decide on these disqualification petitions within a “reasonable time.” However, the delay in taking action led to the matter being brought before the Supreme Court.
BRS MLAs Kuna Pandu Vivekananda and Padi Kaushik Reddy, along with Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, challenged the Speaker’s inaction in a plea before the apex court, demanding a time-bound decision.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate C Aryaman Sundaram, appearing for the petitioners, informed the Court about CM Revanth Reddy’s statement in the Assembly.
He quoted the CM as saying:
“The Chief Minister on 26th March in the Assembly told the members that ‘I assure you through the Speaker that there will be no by-elections whether you switch sides’ … it is an Assembly proceeding.”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the official respondents, argued that the Assembly proceedings were not directly related to the present case. He also clarified that he was not representing the CM in this matter. However, Justice Gavai advised him to caution the Chief Minister against making such statements.
“Mr. Rohatgi, you have appeared for the Hon’ble Chief Minister once in that case. You better warn that no repeat action … we know we are slow in issuing contempt notices, but we are also not powerless.”
The Supreme Court underlined that statements made in legislative bodies hold significance and can be referenced while interpreting laws.
“When politicians say something in the Assembly, it has got sanctity. In fact, the judgments say when we interpret laws, the speech given on the floor of the House can be used for interpreting.”
CM Revanth Reddy had earlier faced criticism from the Supreme Court for his remarks against the judiciary after BRS leader K Kavitha was granted bail.
During the hearing, Rohatgi contended that under Article 226 of the Constitution, a High Court cannot issue directions to the Speaker for a time-bound decision on disqualification matters. He argued that courts can only make requests in such cases.
However, the Supreme Court questioned the Speaker’s prolonged inaction and asked:
“Shall we record your statement that the Supreme Court can’t issue directions to the Speaker even if the Speaker doesn’t decide the disqualification for 3 or 4 years?”
Another counsel pointed out that Parliament has the power to establish a timeline for the Speaker’s decision on such matters.
ALSO READ: Goa Bench Of Bombay HC: “No Disqualification for Congress MLAs Who Joined BJP In 2022”
Justice Gavai, in response, emphasized the importance of judicial intervention in upholding democracy.
“What truly strengthens democracy, to a significant extent, are the directives issued by the Court from time to time.”
He highlighted how the Supreme Court had mandated politicians to disclose their criminal records through affidavits before contesting elections, ensuring greater transparency.
