Supreme Court questions delay in Telangana MLAs’ disqualification petitions

The court noted that despite repeated requests by the petitioners and subsequent directions from the High Court to decide on the issue within a "reasonable period", the Speaker took nearly 10 months to issue a notice on the disqualification petitions, raising concerns about the erosion of constitutional principles.

Hyderabad: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed strong reservations over the Telangana Assembly Speaker’s delay in deciding disqualification petitions against BRS MLAs who defected to the ruling Congress. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih observed that inaction for months, or even years, could not be justified. The matter will be heard again on Wednesday.

According to online legal news reporting agency Live Law, Justice Gavai pointedly questioned the delay, asking whether courts should “tie their hands and look at the naked dance of democracy.” The court noted that despite repeated requests by the petitioners and subsequent directions from the High Court to decide on the issue within a “reasonable period”, the Speaker took nearly 10 months to issue a notice on the disqualification petitions, raising concerns about the erosion of constitutional principles.

---

The apex court is also said to have taken strong exception to Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy’s remarks in the House, claiming that no bye-election would take place even if MLAs switched parties. “If this is said in the House in the presence of the Speaker, he is making a mockery of the 10th Schedule. When politicians make statements in the Assembly, they carry some sanctity,” the court remarked. The bench pointed out that while the Court is cautious in issuing contempt notices, it is not powerless to act.

Live Law quoted Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the respondents, contending that the courts could only “request” the Speaker, not direct him. However, Justice Gavai countered that the Supreme Court, under Article 142, was not powerless if constitutional functionaries ignored judicial directions. He recalled that the Speaker was called by the Supreme Court for contempt.

He stated that the courts had a duty to act as guardians of the Constitution. “If for four years, the Speaker does not act, should the court tie its hands?” he questioned, pointing to the inordinate delay in issuing notices on disqualification petitions, which were filed as early as March 2024 but remained pending until January 2025.

According to Live Law, the Supreme Court also felt that the Telangana High Court’s Division Bench should not have interfered with the Single Bench’s order, which had merely requested the Speaker to set a schedule for decision-making within four weeks. “There was no occasion for the Division Bench to interfere,” Justice Gavai noted.

While acknowledging the Speaker’s autonomy, the bench underscored that legislative inaction should not be allowed to undermine democratic processes. “You found it apt not to proceed further during pendency before HC, but you proceeded when matter was pending before the Supreme Court,” Justice Gavai noted, adding that unless the Speaker decided on what was “reasonable” time, the courts should be allowed to decide.