Gross contempt: Supreme Court slams Telangana Speaker in case on BRS MLAs' defection to Congress

The Supreme Court on Monday took strong exception to the continued delay on the part of the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly in deciding on petitions to disqualify Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) who had defected to the Congress party after their election on Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) tickets

The Court orally observed today that the Telangana Speaker's conduct reflected gross contempt of court.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria made the observation while hearing a plea by BRS MLA Kaushik Reddy who moved the Court seeking disqualification of 10 MLAs who defected from BRS to the Congress party.

On July 31, the top court had set a three-month deadline for the Speaker to decide on such petitions.

However, on noticing further delay, the CJI today warned that the Speaker will be put on the dock for contempt of court if he does not decide on the matter by next week.

"Telangana speaker in gross contempt of court. Either it has to be decided by next week or face contempt. We have already held he (Speaker) doesn't enjoy constitutional immunity. It is up to him to decide where he wants to spend his New Year," CJI Gavai said.

Representing the Telangana Assembly, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi replied,

"The message is loud and clear, milord."

The 10 MLAs had switched allegiance from the BRS to the Congress in 2023, shortly after the Congress won the Telangana legislative assembly to form the ruling government.

The matter reached the Telangana High Court after the Speaker allegedly delayed taking any decision on whether to disqualify these MLAs for defection.

On September 9, 2024, a single judge of the High Court comprising 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 matter then reached the Supreme Court, which held that the Division Bench erred in interfering with the single-judge's directions.

The top court proceeded to set a three-month deadline for the Speaker to make his decision. However, the Speaker is yet to decide the matter.

[Live Coverage]