BRS MLAs' Defection To Congress | Supreme Court Reserves Orders In Pleas Seeking Timely Decision By Speaker On Disqualification Petitions

The Supreme Court today reserved orders in the matter pertaining to BRS MLAs' defection to the ruling Congress party in Telangana and the Assembly Speaker's delay in deciding consequent disqualification petitions.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih reserved the verdict after hearing Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for respondents) and Aryama Sundaram (for petitioners).

Briefly put, Singhvi argued that there is no judgment, except Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. The Hon'ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly, where time-line for Speaker's decision on disqualification petitions was fixed. That too, he urged was distinguishable from the present case, while Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya (relied upon by the petitioners) was inapplicable.

The orders passed in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, Singhvi further contended, were orders that could not be treated as precedent for cases like the instant one.

When Justice Gavai posed to him as to what would be "reasonable period" in his perception, initially no concrete answer was forthcoming. However, when the judge underlined that a lawyer's first duty is towards the Court (to help lay down correct law), which expects some degree of fairness, Singhvi finally conceded and answered as officer of the Court that 6 months should be a "reasonable period". However, he was quick to also say that the present case is not a fit case to "short-circuit" the Speaker's discretion at the ongoing stage.

Further, it was argued that in the present case, the "reasonable time"/"6 months" stage has not come. In response, Justice Gavai remarked, "though a period of more than 1 year and 2 months has passed, but the time has not come for this Court to intervene?"

Reiterating that the order of the Single Bench of the High Court was correct and should not have been interfered with by the Division Bench, the judge said, "had you accepted the just order of the Single Judge, there was no occasion for the Division Bench to pass such an unjust order, which requires us to interfere". On the aspect of a Speaker's delay in deciding disqualification petition, Justice Gavai further commented, "every such application for disqualification, should we permit it to die its natural death and 10th Schedule should be thrown in the dustbin?"

On Singhvi's argument that the Speaker did not initially issue notice on the disqualification petition(s) as the matter was pending before the High Court, Justice Gavai called out the contradiction in the respondents' stances saying that, on one hand, the Speaker did not issue notice out of deference for the High Court, but on the other, it issued notice on 16.01.2025 while the matter was pending before Supreme Court. "You can't argue it both ways", the judge told Singhvi.

While making rejoinder submissions, Senior Advocate Sundaram pointed to another anomaly in the respondents' submissions. He said that on one hand, the respondents were claiming that the Court has no jurisdiction to fix a time-limit in which the Speaker shall decide disqualification petitions; on the other, they were claiming that situation would be different if there is no decision by Speaker for years at length, which might constitute an "exceptional circumstance".

It was urged that even as per the respondents, the Court is not entirely powerless, and the question is ultimately one of facts - as to "when" Court can direct/ask Speaker to decide in a time-bound manner. In this context, Justice Gavai noted that, "Article 226 is not just a power, it is power coupled with duty to do complete justice".

At last, pointing to statements made by Telangana CM Revanth Reddy in the House, in the presence of the Speaker, Sundaram also highlighted petitioners' "reasonable apprehension" that the Speaker might not decide in a "reasonable period". "I agree statements of CM can't be attributed to Speaker, but since Speaker did not say anything, coupled with the inaction, I have a reasonable apprehension. I am requesting for a time-limit to decide the matter", he submitted.

Earlier proceedings

Yesterday, the Court orally observed that the Division Bench of the High Court had no reason to interfere with the Single Bench order which merely directed the Speaker to fix within 4 weeks a schedule for deciding the disqualification petitions.

It also took strong exception to CM Revanth Reddy's alleged statement on the Floor of the House that no bye-elections will take place even if BRS MLAs switch sides to the Congress party.

Previously, the Court had expressed a prima facie opinion that certain observations in Subhash Desai 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.

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