In Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs’ pleas against Telangana Assembly Speaker’s delay in deciding disqualification petitions in respect of party MLAs who defected to the ruling Congress, the Supreme Court today questioned the impact of long pendency of disqualification petitions on democratic principles.
“Every matter can’t be operation successful, patient dead…reasonable period (for deciding disqualification pleas) should be end of the term!? In a democracy, this process should go on endlessly till the end of the term? What happens to democratic principles then?”, remarked Justice BR Gavai, in the backdrop of Telangana Assembly Speaker’s delay in deciding disqualification petitions.
“People are not interested only in getting the law decided, they are interested in how the decision affects [them]”, the judge added.
The observations came after BRS and its MLAs pointed out that the disqualification petitions against its MLAs (who defected to Congress) have been pending since more than 6 months, but nothing has happened. It was urged that one of the MLAs sought to be disqualified infact contested the Lok Sabha elections from Congress, another MLA was campaigning for the Congress party, and the others are seen with the State CM “wearing Congress flags”.
It was the petitioner’s case that the Speaker’s failure to take a timely decision on the disqualification petitions has amounted to failure of “constitutional mandate”.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and adjourned it to March 25, after the respondent(s), who had appeared earlier and said that they did not wish to file reply, claimed that they were unable to file reply as no “formal notice” was issued.
Issuing formal notice to the respondents, including the Speaker, the bench recorded,
“When the matter was listed on January 31, 2025, we directed the matter to be listed on February 10, 2025. Mr Mukul Rohatgi and Mr Shekhar Naphde, ld. senior counsels, appeared for respondent No.3…though we had not recorded in writing, we recollect we had put a query to Mr Rohatgi as to whether the Speaker would express the timeline within which the matter would be decided so that we avoid passing orders…As such, we directed the matter to be listed on February 20. On the said date, Mr Rohatgi stated that he had instructions from the Secretary that no such statement could be made on behalf of the Speaker.”
“Today, when the matter is called out, we have heard…an objection is raised by Dr Singhvi and Mr Rohatgi, ld. senior counsels, that there is no formal notice in the matter and therefore, the respondents could not file reply. No doubt that the objection is hyper technical, however, we do not want any objection to be permitted to be raised at a subsequent point of time that the petitions were decided without following the principles of natural justice. We therefore issue a formal notice to the respondents.”
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram (for petitioners) was heard disputing the respondents’ request for time to file response, saying that it was a dilatory tactic. They had earlier conveyed the intention not to file a counter-affidavit and about an year has already passed without anything happening, he said.
On the judgments cited by the senior counsel, Justice Gavai noted that in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court observed that the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a “reasonable period” and did not stipulate any specific period. However, Sundaram contended that the issue arising in the present case did not directly arise in Subhash Desai.
Be that as it may, to avoid any conflict in future, the bench ultimately sought a response from the respondents and listed the matter for hearing as first item on March 25.
While service of notice was waived by some respondents, the Court directed that the Registrar General of Telangana High Court shall ensure that notices are served to the others. “We clarify that pleadings, if any, be filed by the respondents prior to the returnable date”, it ordered.
In a lighter vein, before the Court parted with the matter, Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi joked that he was best equipped to argue matters like the present one, as he had himself been a victim(Singhvi had earlier appeared for the petitioners seeking disqualification of Uddhav Sena MLAs who defected to Shinde Sena). Joining in, Justice Gavai commented that the Court could discharge the senior counsel’s appearance for the respondent(s) and engage him to assist as an Amicus.
To recap, the Court is dealing with two petitions:
One, filed by BRS and its MLAs assailing the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker’s delay in deciding disqualification petitions filed in respect of 7 MLAs who contested the 2023 Assembly elections on BRS ticket but later joined the ruling Congress party in the state. The MLAs whose defection is assailed in this petition include: Srinivas Reddy Parigi, Bandla Krishna Mohan Reddy, Kale Yadaiah, T. Prakash Goud, A. Gandhi, Gudem Mahipal Reddy and M. Sanjay Kumar.
Second, filed by Telangana MLA Padi Kaushik Reddy pertaining to the defection of 3 MLAs (Venkata Rao Tellam, Kadiyam Srihari and Danam Nagender) from BRS party to the ruling Congress party. In this case, the Supreme Court had earlier asked the State Legislative Assembly as to what would be a “reasonable period” for deciding the disqualification pleas filed against the defecting MLAs.
Case Title:
(1) PADI KAUSHIK REDDY Versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025
(2) KALVAKUNTLA TARAKA RAMA RAO AND ORS. Versus THE SPEAKER TELANGANA STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 82/2025
