The Supreme Court on Thursday set a three-month deadline for the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to decide on the disqualification of three Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) who had defected to the Congress party after their election on Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) tickets [Padi Kaushik Reddy v. The State of Telangana and connected matters].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran passed the ruling on petitions filed by BRS leaders and a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader who sought a directive to the Speaker for timely action on these disqualification proceedings.
The top court today set aside a November 2024 decision passed by a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, which had quashed a single-judge's earlier ultimatum to the Speaker to either fix a schedule for deciding the matter or possibly face adverse orders from the Court.
"We are inclined to allow the present appeal. November 22, 2024 order by Division Bench is set aside. Disqualification proceedings against 10 MLAs are to be decided as expeditiously as possible and within 3 months. No MLA shall be allowed to protract the proceedings. If done so, then Speaker shall draw adverse inferences," the Supreme Court ordered today.
The Bench further underscored that if political defections are not curbed, it has the power to disrupt democracy. It added that a Speaker, when acting as the adjudicating authority to decide on defection proceedings, does not enjoy immunity and functions as a tribunal which is amenable to judicial review.
By way of background, BRS MLAs Kuna Pandu Vivekananda and Padi Kaushik Reddy, as well as BJP MLA Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, had moved the High Court challenging the inaction of the Speaker in deciding the disqualification petitions against MLAs Venkata Rao Tellam, Kadiyam Srihari and Danam Nagender.
On September 9, 2024, single judge Justice B Vijaysen Reddy ordered the Secretary of the Assembly to place the disqualification pleas before the Speaker, who was directed to decide on the matter in a time-bound manner. The schedule fixed for the Speaker's decision was to be communicated to the High Court.
The single-judge had added that if no action is taken within four weeks, the matter will be reopened suo motu, and appropriate orders will be issued.
This was challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court, which set aside the single-judge's ultimatum, and instead requested the Speaker to decide the matter within a reasonable time.
The Supreme Court today ruled that the Division Bench of the High Court had erred when it interfered with the single-judge's order.
[Read Judgment]
[Live coverage]