New Delhi, Mar 4 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday slammed the prolonged delay caused by the Assembly Speaker on the disqualification petitions against Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs who defected to the ruling Congress in Telangana, and questioned the impact of such delays on democratic principles.
A bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih issued a formal notice to the respondents, including the Speaker, Assembly Secretary and Election Commission (ECI).
The Bench said, "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?" Justice B.R. Gavai remarked in response to the Telangana Assembly Speaker's delay in adjudicating the petitions.
The bench was hearing the matter on Telangana Assembly Speaker's delay in adjudicating the petitions.
The Bench adjourned it to March 25 after the respondents, who had earlier stated they did not wish to file a reply and claimed they were unable to do so due to the absence of a "formal notice."
"When the matter was listed on January 31, 2025, we directed it to be listed on February 10, 2025.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Shekhar Naphde appeared for respondent No. 3. Though not recorded in writing, we recall having asked Mr. Rohatgi whether the Speaker would specify a timeline for deciding the matter to avoid court intervention. Consequently, we listed it for February 20. On that date, Mr. Rohatgi informed us that he had instructions from the Secretary that no such statement could be made on behalf of the Speaker."
Justice Gavai further observed, "People are not interested only in getting the law decided; they are interested in how the decision affects [them]."
The observations came after BRS and its MLAs pointed out that the disqualification petitions against defected MLAs have been pending for over six months with no progress. The petitioners highlighted that one of the defected MLAs even contested the Lok Sabha election on a Congress ticket, while another was actively campaigning for the Congress party, and others were seen with the Telangana Chief Minister wearing Congress flags.
The petitioners contended that the Speaker's failure to act on the disqualification petitions amounted to a failure of "constitutional mandate."
"Today, when the matter is called, an objection is raised by Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. Rohatgi, stating that no formal notice was issued, preventing the respondents from filing a reply. While the objection is hyper-technical, we do not want any issue to arise later regarding principles of natural justice. Therefore, we issue a formal notice to the respondents."
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, representing the petitioners, disputed the respondents' request for additional time to file a response, alleging it was a delaying tactic. He argued that the respondents had earlier stated their intention not to file a counter-affidavit, and nearly a year had passed without any progress in the case.
Justice Gavai referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, which held that the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a "reasonable period" but did not specify a timeframe. Sundaram, however, contended that the present case raised distinct issues not directly covered by Subhash Desai.
To ensure procedural clarity, the bench directed the respondents to submit their replies before the next hearing and scheduled the matter as the first item for hearing on March 25.
While some respondents waived formal notice, the Court instructed the Registrar General of the Telangana High Court to ensure service of notice to the remaining respondents. The Court also clarified that any pleadings from the respondents must be filed before the returnable date.
In a lighter exchange, Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi quipped that he was well-suited to argue such cases as he had previously been a "victim"—a reference to his representation of petitioners seeking disqualification of Uddhav Sena MLAs who defected to Shinde Sena. Justice Gavai humorously responded that the Court could discharge Singhvi from representing the respondents and instead appoint him as an Amicus.
The Supreme Court is currently hearing two petitions one filed by BRS and its MLAs challenging the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker's delay in deciding disqualification petitions against seven MLAs who contested the 2023 Assembly election on a BRS ticket but later joined the Congress. The defected MLAs include Srinivas Reddy Parigi, Bandla Krishna Mohan Reddy, Kale Yadaiah, T. Prakash Goud, A. Gandhi, Gudem Mahipal Reddy, and M. Sanjay Kumar.
Another petition filed by Telangana MLA Padi Kaushik Reddy regarding the defection of three MLAs—Venkata Rao Tellam, Kadiyam Srihari, and Danam Nagender—from BRS to Congress. In this case, the Supreme Court had earlier questioned the State Legislative Assembly on what would be a "reasonable period" for deciding disqualification pleas against defecting MLAs.
UNI SNG CS2035