SC sets three-month deadline for Telangana Speaker to decide on defected BRS MLAs’ disqualification
The Supreme Court has directed the Telangana Assembly Speaker to decide within three months on disqualification petitions against 10 BRS MLAs who joined the Congress. It warned against delays, reaffirming that Speakers’ decisions are subject to judicial review.
Hyderabad: In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker to decide within three months on the disqualification petitions filed against 10 BRS MLAs who defected to the ruling Congress party. Order were passed based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Court set aside the judgment of the division bench of the Telangana High Court which nullified the single bench direction to the Speaker to fix the schedule of hearing within four weeks.
The 10 MLAs in question are
Danam Nagender (Khairatabad), Bandla Krishnamohan Reddy (Gadwal), Kadiyam Srihari (Station Ghanpur), Tellam Venkat Rao (Bhadrachalam), Gudem Mahipal Reddy (Patancheru), Kale Yadaiah (Chevella), Prakash Goud (Rajendranagar), Dr. Sanjay (Jagtial), Arikepudi Gandhi (Serilingampalli) and Pocharam Srinivas Reddy (Banswada).
According to legal news portal “Live Law”, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih delivered the verdict in three cases pertaining to BRS MLAs’ defection to the ruling Congress party in Telangana and the Assembly Speaker’s delay in deciding consequent disqualification petitions.
The Court made it clear that the Speaker shall not permit the MLAs to delay the proceedings and warned that any attempt to protract will only draw adverse inference. The bench observed that it cannot allow the disqualification petitions to remain pending during the term of the Assembly, letting the defectors to reap the benefits of the delay.
The Apex court’s direction came while hearing a batch of petitions seeking a time-bound decision from the Speaker. The court emphasised that the purpose of entrusting disqualification matters to the Speaker or the Chairman was to avoid the prolonged delays seen in the courts. It noted that the Parliament had envisioned a quicker mechanism by vesting powers in the Speaker for expeditious disposal.
Further, the court clarified that while the Speaker acts as a tribunal in such matters, his decisions remain subject to judicial review under Articles 136 and 226/227 of the Constitution, thereby keeping the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts intact. The Court observed that the Speaker, while acting as a Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, does not enjoy any “constitutional immunity”.
