SC issues notice to Telangana government over ‘delay’ in deciding MLAs’ disqualification pleas

The bench sought responses of State government, speaker's officer, Telangana Legislative Assembly Secretary, ECI and the defected lawmakers before the next date of hearing, March 25

Hyderabad: The Supreme Court on Monday issued a formal notice in the plea filed by BRS and its MLAs challenging the delay by the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker in deciding disqualification petitions against 10 MLAs who contested the 2023 elections on a BRS ticket but later defected to the Congress party. The matter has been posted for hearing on March 25.

During a previous hearing on February 10, the court had asked Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Shekhar Naphde, who appeared on behalf of the Telangana Assembly Speaker, about the time limit for deciding on the disqualification petitions. The matter was posted for hearing on February 18, but as the judges were occupied in the Constitutional bench, it was posted to March 4.

---

On Tuesday, the apex court heard both petitions filed by BRS working president KT Rama Rao on behalf of the party and also by BRS MLA Padi Kaushik Reddy, which were clubbed together for hearing.

During the hearing, the Speaker’s counsel, including Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, objected on technical grounds citing the absence of a formal notice to the Speaker to clarify on reasonable time to decide on the disqualification petitions. The Supreme Court observed that it was “hyper-technical” without doubt, but necessary to ensure that no objection was raised at a later point that the matter was decided without following principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Court issued a formal notice and waived it on behalf of the respondents. The case will now be taken up on March 25.

Justice BR Gavai expressed strong reservations over the delay, remarking, “Should the reasonable period for deciding a disqualification plea be the end of the term? What happens to democratic principles then?” He emphasised that disqualification proceedings cannot become a case of “operation successful, patient dead.”

Senior Advocate S Sundaram, appearing for the petitioners, pointed out that more than a year had passed without a decision. He accused the Speaker’s counsel of deliberate delay tactics, on different grounds whenever the issue came for hearing. “This is just another way of stalling,” he said.