DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict in the disqualification case involving ten BRS MLAs who defected to the ruling party, with the bench criticising the Telangana Speaker’s delay and Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s controversial remarks in the Assembly.
A two-judge bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih concluded the hearing of petitions filed by BRS Working President K.T. Rama Rao and MLAs Padi Kaushik Reddy and KP Vivekanand. The petitioners challenged the Speaker’s inaction on disqualification pleas, accusing him of deliberately delaying a decision in violation of constitutional provisions.
Representing the Telangana Legislative Assembly Secretary, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that there is no binding legal precedent that mandates a fixed timeframe for the Speaker to decide on disqualification petitions. However, Justice Gavai questioned the open-ended delay, asking, “In your view, what qualifies as a reasonable time?”
Court Criticises CM’s Comments on Assembly Floor
During the hearing, senior advocate Aryama Sundaram, appearing for Kaushik Reddy, brought to the court’s attention recent remarks made by CM Revanth Reddy in the Assembly. The Chief Minister had stated that there would be no by-elections and claimed that even the Speaker shared this stance.
Justice Gavai responded sharply, saying, “Can the Chief Minister not exercise basic restraint? Such comments on matters pending before the court are inappropriate. We are showing restraint; the other two branches of the Constitution should show the same respect.”
Though Singhvi attempted to deflect attention by pointing out that the opposition had made provocative statements as well, the bench dismissed those arguments as irrelevant. Justice Gavai remarked that the CM’s comments could potentially amount to contempt of court.
High Court’s Role and Constitutional Concerns
Singhvi also challenged the Telangana High Court’s single bench order that directed the Speaker to act within a deadline—an order later overturned by a division bench. He argued that the judiciary should not interfere with the Speaker’s discretion.
In response, Justice Gavai asked whether the courts should remain silent in the face of political defections. “Let’s not forget that in earlier contempt proceedings, even Assembly Speakers have been summoned. If no decision is taken on defections, it is a violation of the Constitution under Schedule 10,” he said.
Final Arguments Conclude, Verdict Reserved
After hearing all parties, the bench reserved its verdict in the case. The outcome is expected to clarify the judiciary’s role in adjudicating disqualification petitions and determine whether constitutional authorities can be compelled to act within a time-bound framework.
The petitions were filed in response to the defection of ten BRS MLAs to the ruling party. The petitioners argue that the Speaker’s prolonged silence undermines democratic processes and violates anti-defection laws.
