The court noted that while acting as an adjudicating authority, the Speaker functions as a tribunal and is amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Published Jul 31, 2025 | 11:32 AM ⚊ Updated Jul 31, 2025 | 11:33 AM
Supreme Court (iStock)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court directed the Telangana Assembly Speaker to decide on the disqualification proceedings against 10 BRS MLAs who have defected to the Congress and complete the process within three months.
The Supreme Court on Thursday, 31 July, directed the Telangana Assembly Speaker to decide on the disqualification proceedings against 10 BRS MLAs, who have defected to the Congress following their election victory, within three months.
“No MLA shall be allowed to protract the proceeding. If done so, then the Speaker shall draw adverse inferences,” the court said in its order.
The matter was heard by an apex court bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice AG Mishra. Petitions were filed by MLAs KT Rama Rao, Padi Kaushik Reddy and KP Vivekanand, on behalf of the BRS, against the MLAs who defected to the ruling Congress after the Assembly election in November 2023.
The petition targets Pocharam Srinivas Reddy, Kale Yadaiah, M Sanjay Kumar, Krishnamohan Reddy, Mahipal Reddy, Prakash Goud, and Arekapudi Gandhi, while the Special Leave Petition (SLP) is directed at Congress defectors Danam Nagender, Kadiyam Srihari, and Tellam Venkat Rao.
The apex court observed that defections have the potential to disrupt democracy.
“Political defections have been a matter of national discourse. If not curbed, they have the potential to disrupt democracy,” the bench observed. “We have referred to various speeches made in Parliament, including those by Rajesh Pilot and Devendra Nath Munshi.”
“The intent behind allowing the Speaker to decide disqualification proceedings was to avoid delays before the courts. For the expeditious disposal of such proceedings, the responsibility was entrusted to the Speaker,” the court noted.
On procedural concerns, it added: “It was argued that we cannot decide the case since the issue is pending before a larger bench. We have also referred to Kihoto Hollohan, which held that the scope of judicial review is very limited in relation to Article 136 and Articles 226 and 227.”
CJI Gavai remarked, “The Division Bench has erred in interfering with the order of the Single Judge. The Single Judge had not even directed the Speaker to dispose of the matter within a fixed timeframe.”
“While acting as an adjudicating authority, the Speaker functions as a tribunal and is amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court,” he said. “The Speaker, while acting in this capacity, does not enjoy constitutional immunity.”
Venkata Rao Tellam, Kadiyam Srihari, and Danam Nagender were elected as BRS members following the 2023 Assembly polls. However, they defected to the ruling Congress.
BRS, along with BJP MLA Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, filed a writ petition in the Telangana High Court, accusing the Legislative Assembly Speaker of inaction in resolving the disqualification cases for over three months. They argued that such delays could encourage further defections from BRS to the ruling party.
The controversy began when the high court initially directed the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly to file a disqualification motion with the Speaker, instructing a decision to be made within four weeks.
However, in November 2024, the High Court’s Division Bench overruled this decision, siding with the state’s argument that the Speaker’s powers to decide on disqualification petitions should not be subject to judicial interference.
The court then allowed the Speaker “reasonable time” to make a decision, prompting the BRS to appeal to the Supreme Court. The matter reached the apex court in January 2025 when Kaushik Reddy filed a petition regarding the defection of three MLAs to the Congress party.
The Supreme Court bench had asked the Telangana Legislative Assembly Secretary to clarify what would constitute a “reasonable period” for deciding on the disqualification cases.
Later, after hearing the arguments, the apex court reserved its order in the case in April this year. Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram led the arguments for the petitioners, and Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the respondents.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
