Telangana: Supreme Court reserves order on plea against Speaker’s delay in MLAs disqualification petitions
During the hearing on Wednesday, the court observed that the Telangana High Court’s Division Bench had no reason to interfere with the Single Bench order, which merely directed the Speaker to fix a schedule within four weeks.
Hyderabad: The Supreme Court has reserved its order on petitions filed by BRS MLAs challenging the Telangana Assembly Speaker’s delay in deciding disqualification petitions against defected legislators. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih questioned the prolonged inaction, pressing senior advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the respondents, on the delay.
During the hearing on Wednesday, the court observed that the Telangana High Court’s Division Bench had no reason to interfere with the Single Bench order, which merely directed the Speaker to fix a schedule within four weeks.
Legal news publication Live Law on Thursday, reported that Justice Gavai asked Singhvi on what would be considered a “reasonable period” for the Speaker to act. “Should we wait until 2028 and allow a mockery of the process?” he questioned. Singhvi agreed such a delay was unacceptable and suggested a six-month timeline.
The court also took serious note of the Telangana Assembly proceedings, where Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy defended the government’s stance while a BRS MLA opposed discussing the matter pending before the Supreme Court. Justice Gavai observed that the Chief Minister should have exercised more restraint.
Justice Gavai stated that Article 226 grants courts the duty to ensure justice. He also criticised the selective approach of citing High Court proceedings for delays while proceeding with legislative actions despite the Supreme Court’s notice.
Senior advocate Aryaman Sundaram, appearing for the petitioners, accused the respondents of taking contradictory positions. “They argue courts cannot interfere before a decision is made but later concede that exceptional delays warrant intervention,” he said. He insisted that the Speaker’s silence and inaction raised serious concerns. With arguments concluded, Sundaram urged the court to set a strict deadline for the Speaker.
