BRS MLAs' Defection To Congress | Supreme Court Prima Facie Says Telangana Speaker Must Take Time-Bound Decision On Disqualification

In the matter pertaining to the defection of 3 MLAs from BRS party to the ruling Congress party in Telangana, the Supreme Court today expressed a prima facie opinion that certain observations in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra lent support to the petitioners' case and that the observations of the Telangana High Court (Division Bench) with regard to judicial precedents on the issue involved were incorrect.

In Subhash Desai, a Constitution Bench of the top Court, while dealing with issues arising out of Shiv Sena rift, had held that the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker shall decide the subject disqualification petition(s) within a "reasonable period". However, subsequently, when pleas were filed claiming that "nothing happened" for months even after the Court's judgment, the Court warned and later fixed timelines to be adhered by the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions.

Today, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih adjourned the BRS matter to next Wednesday (April 2), after hearing Senior Advocates Aryama Sundaram and Dama Seshadri Naidu on behalf of the petitioners (BRS MLAs seeking time-bound decision on disqualification pleas). Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the respondents.

Addressing the Court on behalf of the petitioners, Sundaram argued that the facts of the case were glaring inasmuch as all 3 sitting MLAs (who defected) campaigned for the Congress party. Infact, one of them, after losing Lok Sabha elections on Congress ticket, was continuing as MLA in BRS party, he said. The senior counsel also pointed out that till 09.09.2024, when the Single Bench of the High Court passed an order asking the Speaker to fix a schedule for hearing in 4 weeks, not even notice was issued by the Speaker on the disqualification petitions.

Albeit surprised that even notice was not issued by the Speaker till such time, even though complaints were made as far back as in March, 2024, Justice Gavai commented that the Court was not considering the merits of the case, but rather, whether the High Court can, if the Speaker has not exercised jurisdiction to decide a disqualification petition, direct under Article 226 of the Constitution that the petition be decided in accordance with law in a specific period, and whether the Division Bench was correct in interfering with the order of the Single Bench.

Thereafter, Sundaram contended that no notice was given to the leader of the party in terms of the relevant Telangana Rules, and that all 3 MLAs gave similar replies seeking 4 months' time to respond to the disqualification pleas. On this, Justice Gavai commented in jest, "fortunately, they did not ask for 4 years". In response to Sundaram's submission that the Speaker gave 3 weeks' time to the MLAs, the judge added, "atleast here he was reasonable".

Subsequently, Sundaram raised a question as to whether a constitutional Court (like Supreme Court) is powerless to require a constitutional authority (like the Telangana Assembly Speaker) to act as per their constitutional mandate? He argued that the answer to the said question needs to be a 'yes', otherwise it would be the end of democracy and of the mandate of the constitutional court to act as the custodian of the Constitution.

A second issue raised by Sundaram was - "when the Rules are silent as to time, does that give an absolute largesse to the Speaker, acting as a quasi-judicial authority, to take how much ever time he wants?" Thirdly, the senior counsel argued on the issue of judicial review, submitting,

"Judicial review is of some kind of proceeding which has taken place...ours is a case of mandamus not seeking to interdict any proceeding of Speaker, but merely asking the Speaker to discharge his constitutional mandate. It's requiring an action as per Constitution."

In support of his submissions, he referred to the decisions in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (5 judges), Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya (5 judges), Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. The Hon'ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly (3 judges) and Subhash Desai (5 judges, wherein reference made to a larger bench is pending) as well as the reference order in S.A. Sampath Kumar v. Kale Yadaiah.

Insofar as the 3-judge decision in Meghachandra considered Kihoto and Rajendra Singh Rana, and fixed a time-line for the Manipur Assembly Speaker's deciding of disqualification petitions, but the subsequent 5-judge decision in Subhash Desai did not prescribe any timeline, the bench opined that between decisions rendered by 3 judges and 5 judges, the bench would be bound by the subsequent 5-judge decision and any interference before Speaker's final decision may be impermissible (as held in Kihoto).

At this point, Sundaram urged that the question before the Court in the subsequent 5-judge case ie Subhash Desai was whether the disqualification petition had to be decided by the Speaker or could it be decided by the Court. The issue whether a constitutional court could direct time-bound decision on disqualification petition was not before the Court, he contended.

Citing the Meghachandra decision, Sundaram said, "3 judges directly interpreted Kihoto. Assume a matter is referred to larger bench, what is the law till reference is decided? Law cannot live in a vacuum. Courts can't say our hands our tied because matter is referred...In para 109 in Kihoto, it is recognized that protection is only for procedure. Court (in Rajendra Singh Rana) says that failure to decide disqualification application can't be said to be merely in the realm of procedure...".

He also argued that while Kihoto dealt with para 6 of 10th Schedule, the subsequent 5-judge decision in Rajendra Singh Rana interpreted Kihoto to say that Speaker's failure to exercise jurisdiction (to decide a disqualification petition) cannot be held to be covered by the shield of paragraph 6 of the Schedule. It was further his contention that Meghachandra was a judgment in rem which, barring exceptional circumstances, fixed 3 months' time limit for decision on a disqualification petition.

Addressing para 110 in the Kihoto ruling, as per which quia timet actions are not permissible with the exception for interlocutory interference in cases of interlocutory disqualifications or suspensions which may have grave, immediate and irreversible repercussions, Sundaram argued that if Courts can pass an order for deciding disqualification petition in a "reasonable period", they can also specify that period. Both orders would have similar mandate/nature, he submitted. In this regard, Justice Gavai remarked that the Court can interfere with situations which may have immediate and irreversible repercussions, like, if a person is sought to be hanged at 2 AM, or a demolition is to be carried out, or even to "save a government".

Notably, Sundaram also referred to a case where Speaker of a State Assembly was summoned to the Court for contempt. "Constitution stands above all of us. It is constitutional duty of the Court to ensure that Constitution is adhered to. It would be miscarriage of justice to say that Court is denuded of power to ensure that an authority acts as per mandate of the Constitution", he submitted.

Subsequently, when Senior Advocate Naidu took to submissions, it was pointed out that the counter-affidavit in the matter was filed by the Secretary of the Assembly, not the Speaker. Not finding force in the submission, Justice Gavai told the senior counsel that the Speaker could not be expected to file the counter. An example was given of the Supreme Court to say that if the Court is impleaded as a party, it would be the Registrar General who would file the counter, not the Chief Justice of India.

Naidu, however, submitted that in the said case, the Registrar General would file the counter saying it is on behalf of the Court. But in the present case, the Speaker is "not owning it". "They have not raised any issue worth considering. If he (Speaker) sits over the pleas, would it not be prerogative of a constitutional court to nudge or direct him?" he contended. In response, Justice Gavai said that the Court could also "request" the Speaker.

Pertinently, when Naidu appeared to be critiquing Subhash Desai, Justice Gavai orally observed, "We are prima facie of the view that certain observations in Subhash Desai support your case...we have already observed that the observations of the ld. Division bench with regard to these judgments atleast prima facie was not correct...but if you want to unnecessarily criticize Subhash Desai, (you can continue)...".

Eventually, Naidu concluded his submissions praying that the Court ask the Speaker to decide the pleas within 4 weeks. Although a fresh petition was mentioned, the Court clarified that it was not going into the merits of the matter.

For a detailed background, click here.

Case Title: PADI KAUSHIK REDDY Versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 2353-2354/2025 (and connected case)