Telangana High Court overturns order on fixed schedule for disqualification petitions
The High Court on Friday set aside a September 9, 2024 order passed by a single judge, which had directed the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to fix a schedule for hearing disqualification petitions within four weeks. The bench ruled that while the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a "reasonable time," there was no need to impose a strict timeline as mandated by the single judge.
By Our Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, on Friday set aside a September 9, 2024 order passed by a single judge, which had directed the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to fix a schedule for hearing disqualification petitions within four weeks. The bench ruled that while the Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a “reasonable time,” there was no need to impose a strict timeline as mandated by the single judge.
The court emphasized that the concept of “reasonable time” should take into account the specifics of each case, the period of pendency, and the overarching principles enshrined in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The bench noted that the Speaker is the competent authority to decide on disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule and should do so expeditiously, but the timeline would vary based on the facts and circumstances of each matter.
This judgment running into 78 pages was passed in response to writ appeals filed by the Secretary of the Telangana Legislative Assembly, challenging the single judge’s order. The single judge had earlier dealt with writ petitions filed by BRS MLAs Kuna Pandu Vivekananda (Qutbullapur) and Padi Kaushik Reddy (Huzurabad), as well as BJP MLA Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, who sought action against Telangana MLAs Venkata Rao Tellam (Bhadrachalam), Kadiyam Srihari (Station Ghanpur), and Danam Nagender (Khairatabad). These three MLAs, who were elected on BRS tickets, had defected to the Indian National Congress (INC), prompting the disqualification petitions. The single judge had earlier directed the Secretary of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to place the disqualification petitions before the Speaker and schedule hearings within four weeks. The Secretary was also instructed to communicate the hearing schedule to the Registrar of the Court. In the event of a delay, the judge ordered that the matter would be taken up suo motu for further orders.
However, the Speaker’s office, represented by Advocate General(AG), A. Sudarshan Reddy, argued in the writ appeals that the single judge’s order was premature. The Advocate General contended that the Speaker should be given “reasonable time” to decide the matter without being rushed into a time-bound decision, as the writ petition was filed within a mere ten days of the issue arising. He argued that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is applicable only after the Speaker has made a decision, and that judicial interference at this stage was an infringement on the Speaker’s powers. The AG also claimed that the single judge’s direction to the Secretary to schedule the hearing amounted to encroaching on the Speaker’s authority and was not in line with constitutional principles. On the other hand, the counsels representing Kuna Pandu Vivekananda and Padi Kaushik Reddy, supported the single judge’s order. They argued that the failure of the Speaker to decide on the disqualification petitions was a violation of the constitutional mandate and that judicial review was necessary to ensure that the Speaker acted in a timely and efficient manner. Considering submissions made by all parties at length the bench has set aside the single judge order.
Contempt notice agaisnt ACP Rajendranagar
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Friday summoned the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) of Rajendranagar, T. Srinivas, to explain why he should not be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order. The judge issued this directive after the ACP allegedly ignored a notice and, by doing so, tacitly admitted to the contemptuous conduct. The contempt case was filed by Ali Bin Mohammed Bahakam, who had approached the court after the police interfered with his legal possession of six acres of land in Bumrukhnud Dowla village, Rajendranagar Mandal. Bahakam had secured an order from the High Court on January 11, 2024, prohibiting any interference with his possession of the property, except through due legal process. However, on August 10, 2024, a second Saturday, the police, including the Station House Officer (SHO) of Mailaradevpally Police Station, allegedly demolished the structures and compound wall on the petitioner’s land without following the due process mandated by the court. Bahakam filed contempt case accusing the police officials of willfully violating the court’s directive. The judge took cognizance of the matter and issued Form-I notice under Contempt of Courts Act.
