The Supreme Court on Monday emphasized the importance of prompt decision-making in political disputes, as it questioned the “reasonable time” required for the Telangana Assembly Speaker to address the disqualification petitions of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs who defected to the Congress. Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran heard the case, stressing that the rights of a political party cannot be allowed to be frustrated in a democratic setup.
The apex court’s inquiry comes in response to two separate petitions—one filed by the BRS and others—concerning the prolonged delay in deciding the disqualification of the MLAs in question. “In a democracy, the rights of the parties cannot be permitted to be frustrated. We have all the respect for the other two wings but that does not mean that Act of Parliament should itself be permitted to be frustrated,” the bench remarked during the proceedings.
Previously, the Telangana High Court had ordered that the Speaker must make a decision on the petitions against three MLAs within a “reasonable time.” This directive was part of a broader challenge involving three BRS MLAs who had joined the ruling Congress party and another seven legislators whose party affiliations had similarly shifted.
During the session, the Supreme Court probed the counsel for the legislative assembly on what constitutes a “reasonable time,” questioning whether it could extend to the end of the assembly’s term. The bench’s discussion highlighted the need for a clear definition, with Justice Chandran pointedly remarking, “If you don’t give us a reasonable time, we are reasonable men.”
Counsel for the petitioners referenced a prior ruling by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which stipulated that a “reasonable time” for such decisions should be within three months, barring exceptional circumstances.
The ongoing legal battle has its roots in a significant ruling by a division bench of the high court, which overturned a previous decision that required the assembly secretary to forward the disqualification petitions to the speaker. The high court had underscored that the speaker’s deliberations on these petitions should consider the duration of their pendency, the intentions behind including the tenth schedule in the Constitution, and the overall tenure of the assembly.
