Today, On 3rd April,The Supreme Court strongly criticized Telangana Chief Minister’s statement on bye-elections, questioning whether it had made a mistake by not taking contempt action earlier. The court expressed concerns that such remarks could undermine judicial authority and influence legal proceedings. The issue stems from the ongoing disqualification row involving state legislators. The SC’s sharp response highlights the seriousness of the matter and its implications for democratic processes.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court expressed its discontent on Thursday regarding Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy’s remark in the assembly that there would be no bye-elections.
The court emphasized that he should demonstrate “some degree of restraint.”
A bench consisting of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih questioned,
“Did we commit a mistake by letting him go at that time and not taking an action for contempt?”
This comment seemed to reference a previous incident where the court disapproved of Reddy’s remarks on a bail granted to rival BRS leader K Kavitha in connection with the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
These observations arose during discussions on petitions concerning the delay by the Telangana Assembly speaker in addressing disqualification requests for ten BRS MLAs who switched to the Congress party.
The bench reserved its decision on the matter.
During the proceedings, Reddy’s recent assembly statement was brought up. Justice Gavai asked senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the assembly speaker, if the chief minister should not have shown some restraint given the previous context.
He noted that the court is not concerned with politicians’ statements, stating,
“We exercise self-restraint. We respect the other two wings of the democracy. Same is expected of the other two wings also.”
Senior advocate C A Sundaram, representing the petitioner and BRS leader Padi Kaushik Reddy, described the chief minister’s remark as shocking.
He mentioned that a BRS MLA had cautioned against discussing the matter since it was before the apex court, yet Reddy proceeded with his statement.
Sundaram quoted Reddy as saying,
“Mr speaker, I am telling on your behalf to everyone present in the assembly that they need not worry about any bye-elections in future. No bye-elections will come.”
Sundaram noted that the speaker did not respond when the chief minister made this assertion. The bench inquired about what constitutes a “reasonable period” for a speaker to address disqualification petitions and whether such applications should simply be allowed to expire, effectively disregarding the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which addresses disqualification due to defection.
Sundaram urged the bench to impose a deadline for resolving the disqualification petitions, labeling the situation as “extraordinary.” Reddy had allegedly claimed in the assembly on March 26 that there would be no bye-elections, even if BRS members defected.
The bench remarked on April 2,
“If this is said on the floor of the house, your chief minister is making a mockery of the Tenth Schedule.”
The apex court also questioned the speaker about the delay of nearly ten months in issuing notices regarding the disqualification petitions of BRS MLAs who had defected to the Congress.
One of the petitions before the apex court challenges a November 2024 order from the Telangana High Court concerning the disqualification of three BRS MLAs, while another pertains to the remaining seven legislators who defected.
In November of last year, a division bench of the high court stated that the Assembly speaker must address the disqualification petitions against the three MLAs within a “reasonable time.”
This ruling followed appeals against a September 9, 2024, order from a single judge, who had instructed the secretary of the Telangana Assembly to present the disqualification petitions to the speaker within four weeks.
On March 4, the apex court requested responses from the Telangana government and others regarding the petitions, stressing that timely decisions are crucial and cautioning against a scenario where an “operation [is] successful but patient is dead.”
It also sought responses from MLAs Danam Nagender, Venkata Rao Tellam, and Kadiyam Srihari on the matter.