The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Telangana Assembly Speaker’s prolonged delay in issuing notices regarding the disqualification petitions of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs who allegedly defected to the Congress. The bench, led by Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih, highlighted concerns over the implications of such delays on the integrity of democratic processes.
During the proceedings, the court pointedly asked why it took the speaker approximately ten months to act on the disqualification petitions. This inquiry came in light of comments made by Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy, suggesting that there would be no by-elections—a statement the court noted could “make a mockery of the Tenth Schedule” of the Constitution, which governs disqualification based on defection.
The issue at hand involves the delay in handling the petitions that seek to disqualify three BRS MLAs initially, with additional petitions later encompassing seven more legislators. These members are accused of defecting to the Congress, which if proven true, could contravene the anti-defection laws outlined in the Constitution.
The matter escalated to the Supreme Court following a November 2024 ruling by a division bench of the Telangana High Court. The High Court had mandated that the speaker decide on the disqualification petitions within a “reasonable time,” following a September 9, 2024, order by a single judge which directed the assembly secretary to schedule a hearing for these petitions within four weeks.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the speaker, attempted to justify the delays by citing the ongoing legal proceedings at the High Court. He revealed that the speaker issued notices on January 16, after the matter became sub judice at the Supreme Court. However, this explanation did not satisfy the bench, which questioned the rationale behind the timing of these notices and suggested potential contempt of court.
Justice Gavai expressed frustration with the situation, stating, “You found it appropriate not to proceed further during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. You found it appropriate to proceed when the matter was sub-judice before the Supreme Court.”
The bench further criticized the lack of decision-making in the case, arguing that the absence of a decision should not prevent judicial review or oversight to ensure adherence to constitutional mandates. “So, since there is no decision in the present case, the high court could not have interfered with and therefore, this court also should tie its hands away and look at the naked dance of democracy?” Justice Gavai remarked.
