Justice B.R. Gavai strongly asserted the Supreme Court’s duty in upholding the Constitution, stating, “Even if the Speaker takes no action for four years, courts should watch it.”
Hyderabad: The Supreme Court has taken up petitions against the Telangana Speaker for delaying action on disqualification requests related to BRS MLAs who switched to the Congress.
The court’s intervention follows Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s recent statement in the Assembly, where he assured that there would be no by-elections since the existing laws remain unchanged.
A Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih, raised concerns about the delay in sending notices to the defected MLAs.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Issues Notice to Telangana Over Delay in BRS MLA Disqualification Pleas
Justice Gavai observed, “If this is said on the floor of the house, your chief minister is making a mockery of the Tenth Schedule.”
The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution deals with disqualification on the grounds of defection.
The court questioned the Telangana Legislative Assembly Secretary on why an appeal was filed against a single judge’s order, which had only directed the Speaker to set a timeline for the disqualification process.
The bench asked, “When the single judge only asked to fix a schedule, why did you file an appeal against those orders? Then how can you object to our hearing on the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the BRS?”
Justice B.R. Gavai strongly asserted the Supreme Court’s duty in upholding the Constitution, stating, “Even if the Speaker takes no action for four years, courts should watch it.”
Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Speaker, argued that courts should not interfere with the Speaker’s exclusive powers. He acknowledged that judicial review is permitted but maintained that the judiciary cannot impose a fixed timeline.
Rohatgi remarked, “Whether or not to follow a court’s suggestion is within the Speaker’s rights,” reinforcing that one constitutional authority should not exert control over another.
Justice Gavai, however, challenged this argument, asking, “Can’t we tell the Speaker? Can’t we appeal or instruct?”
He further questioned, “If the Speaker can’t take action for four years, should the courts remain silent?”
In response, Rohatgi explained that the Speaker cannot act solely based on the petitioners’ demands in cases of defection. He further clarified that although the petitioners filed their complaint on March 18, the Speaker had already issued notices to the 10 MLAs on January 16, 2025.
The Supreme Court was hearing petitions regarding the alleged delay by the Telangana Assembly Speaker in deciding disqualification pleas. One petition challenged the Telangana High Court’s November 2024 order concerning the disqualification of three MLAs, while another sought action against seven other legislators who had defected.
A division bench of the high court had ruled in November 2024 that the speaker must decide on the disqualification petitions within a “reasonable time.” This order came in response to appeals against a September 9, 2024 decision by a single judge, who had directed the assembly secretary to place the disqualification petitions before the speaker and schedule a hearing within four weeks.
During the proceedings, the apex court asked, “If the speaker does not act at all, are the courts, which have both the power and the duty as guardians of the Constitution, rendered powerless?”
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the speaker’s office, stated that the first disqualification petition was filed on March 18, 2024, followed by two more on April 2 and April 8, respectively. The high court petition was filed on April 10, 2024.
Rohatgi questioned whether such a delay constituted “waiting for a reasonable time.” When asked why the notice on disqualification petitions took so long, he cited the matter’s pendency before the high court.
The bench, however, pressed further, asking, “Even if they filed a petition in the high court within two weeks, what took you 10 months to issue the first notice?”
Rohatgi argued that notices were likely not issued due to the high court proceedings.
The bench countered by asking, “Then why did you issue notice when we are seized of the matter? Should we now issue contempt?”
Rohatgi responded that the petition challenging the high court’s division bench order was filed in the Supreme Court on January 15, 2025, and the speaker issued notice the following day. The bench criticized this move, pointing out that the speaker refrained from acting while the case was in the high court but proceeded once it reached the Supreme Court.
Justice Gavai noted that the single judge had merely directed the speaker to fix a schedule within four weeks, not to decide the matter within that period.
The court also addressed the argument that judicial review applies only to examining the correctness of a decision, stating,
“Since there is no decision in this case, should the court just stand by and witness the naked dance of democracy?”
The bench emphasized that if the court’s requests or directions were ignored, it was not powerless.
“We respect the separation of powers doctrine, but when a constitutional provision is created for a specific purpose, should the courts allow it to be frustrated?” the court questioned.
Arguments will continue on April 3. Earlier, on March 25, senior advocate C.A. Sundaram, representing BRS leader Padi Kaushik Reddy, argued that the core issue was whether a constitutional court had the authority to compel a constitutional authority to act according to its mandate. He contended that denying courts such power would result in a “total miscarriage of justice.”
On March 4, the Supreme Court had sought responses from the Telangana government and others, emphasizing that timely decisions were crucial and warning against a situation where “the operation is successful, but the patient is dead.”
It had also sought replies from MLAs Danam Nagender, Venkata Rao Tellam, and Kadiyam Srihari regarding the “reasonable time” required for the speaker to decide on their disqualification.
The Supreme Court will continue hearing the case tomorrow.
[Case Title: PADI KAUSHIK REDDY Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025 ]
