Speaker's Inaction To Decide Disqualification Pleas Within Reasonable Period Is Subject To Judicial Review : Telangana High Court

While directing the Telangana Assembly Speaker to fix a schedule of hearing to decide the disqualification pleas pending against the defecting BRS MLAs within four weeks, the High Court expressed disagreement over the argument made by the defecting MLAs and State that the Speaker cannot be directed to decide the disqualification petition within a certain time.

“If the contention of the learned Advocate General and other learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents that this Court can never give directions to the Speaker to decide disqualification within a time frame, is to be accepted, then the question that would arise is “how long the inaction or indecision of the Speaker to be tolerated by this Court.”, the bench comprising Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy asked.

As a matter of fact, during the hearing, it was contended by the respondents that the writ of mandamus shall not lie against the inaction of the Speaker to decide the disqualification pleas. Their argument was based on the Supreme Court's Judgment in Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu (1992) where it was held that a writ petition cannot lie against the Speaker at a pre-decision stage i.e., when the speaker has not taken any decision on the disqualification.

In other words, the writ can lie against the Speaker only after he decides on disqualification pleas and not before that. According to the respondents, the relief sought in the writ petition is a 'Quia Timet' action which is not amenable to judicial review.

Rejecting such contention, the court found that the respondents had misplaced their arguments based on Kihoto Hollohan's judgment.

“To contend that indecision/inaction is not subject to judicial review, one has to ask for how long.”, the Court said.

“It cannot be said that the Speaker can wait for five years, until the completion of the term of the house and still Court should lay off its hands. Such approach would be against Constitutional Mandate and antithetical to democratic principles. If the judgment in KIHOTO HOLLOHAN's case (2 supra) is construed in the manner canvassed by the learned Advocate General and other learned senior counsel, then there may arise a situation where the party would not have any remedy if the Speaker declines to take any decision in the disqualification petition.”, the Court added.

Referring to the decision of Keisham Meghachandra Singh's case, the court made it clear that directions can be issued to the Speaker to decide the disqualification petition within a time frame. 

"The decision in KIHOTO HOLLOHAN's case (2 supra) was considered by a three-judge Bench in KEISHAM MEGHACHANDRA SINGH's case (1 supra) and it was clearly held that the law laid with regard to indecision/inaction of the Speaker is subject to judicial review and direction can be issued to decide disqualification petition within a time frame.", the Court said.

The Court acceded to the Petitioner's argument that Court must direct the Speaker to decide the disqualification petition within a fixed time to curb horse trading, as otherwise it would perpetuate fraud on the electorate. The Court said that "Any delay in disposal of disqualification petition would be a fraud on democracy."

After noting that no progress has been made in deciding the disqualification petition, also there was no information as to the status of disqualification petitions, the Court opined that the petitioners have made out special circumstances and are entitled for relief in these writ petitions.

"Having due regard to the Constitutional status and dignity of the Office of the Speaker, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondent No.3-Secretary, Telangana Legislative Assembly, to forthwith place the disqualification petitions before the respondent No.2-Speaker, Telangana Legislative Assembly for fixing a schedule of hearing (filing of pleadings, documents, personal hearing etc.) within a period of four (4) weeks from today. The schedule, so fixed, shall be communicated to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court for the State of Telangana. If nothing is heard within four (4) weeks, it is made clear that the matter will be reopened suo motu and appropriate orders will be passed.", the Court ordered.

Case Title: Kuna Pandu Vivekanand Versus The State of Telangana, WP 11098/2024 (and connected matters)

Click here to read/download the judgment