Supreme Court sets 3-month deadline for Telangana speaker to decide on 10 BRS MLAs' disqualification

The court said it was unfortunate that the Speaker issued notice on disqualification petitions after seven months, only when the apex court issued notice on the issue and decided to examine the delay.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Telangana Assembly Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions, pending since March, 2024, against 10 BRS MLAs for switching side to the ruling Congress in the State, within a period of three months.

Observing that political defections has been a matter of national discourse, and if not curbed, it has the potential to disrupt democracy, a bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih said any MLA should not be allowed to protract the disqualification proceedings pending before the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule.

In its 74-page judgment, the CJI also said Parliament should review current mechanism for disqualification of MLAs since Speakers of Assemblies inordinately delayed such proceedings to frustrate action against defectors who posed danger to democracy.

"If the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it will have to be examined whether the present mechanism is sufficient or not," the bench said.

The court was informed the disqualification petitions were filed in March and April, 2024, the Speaker issued notices to the rebel MLAs only on January 16, 2025 i.e., on the next day after the lead matter was filed before this court on January 15, 2025.

One of the rebel BRS MLA, after defecting to Congress, also contested Lok Sabha polls on INC ticket and after losing the parliamentary election, still continued to remain as an MLA, the appellants said.

In light of the "glaring" facts of the present case, a failure to issue any direction to the Speaker would frustrate the very purpose for which the Tenth Schedule has been brought in the Constitution, the bench said.

"If we do not issue any direction, it will amount to permitting the Speaker to repeat the widely criticized situation of “operation successful, patient died", the bench said.

The court's judgment on a plea filed by BRS leaders K T Rama Rao and Padi Kaushik Reddy, seeking timely action by the Telangana Assembly Speaker on disqualification proceedings pending against 10 MLAs who shifted allegiance to the ruling Congress in the State.

The court also emphasised that the Speaker, while performing the role as a adjudicating authority in disqualification proceedings under the anti defection law, acted as a tribunal amenable to the jurisdiction of high court and Supreme court.

"While acting as an adjudicating authority under Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, the Speaker does not enjoy the constitutional immunity as available either under Article 122 or 212 of the Constitution," the bench said.

The respondents contended that a court cannot issue timelines to the Speaker for deciding the matter. They said a reference was made in S A Sampath Kumar (2021) to the five-judge bench on this issue and has been pending consideration.

However, the bench pointed out, in the case of Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2021), a bench of three judges of this court, after referring to various earlier judgments of this court, has directed the Speaker of the Manipur Assembly to decide the disqualification petitions within a period of three months from date of order.

The court allowed the appeal against the Telangana High Court's division bench decision of November 22, 2024, which set aside the single judge order for the Speaker to fix a schedule of hearing on disqualification petitions within a period of four weeks.

The court, however, did not agree to a request by the appellants to decide the disqualification petitions.

"All the judgments of the Constitution bench, right from Kihoto Hollohan (1992) to Subhash Desai (2024) consistently hold that the Speaker is the authority who should decide the issue with regard to disqualification at the first instance. We are, therefore, not inclined to accede to the said request. We, however, find it appropriate to direct the Speaker to decide the petitions pending before it within a stipulated period," the bench said.

In its decision, the court also referred to Parliament discussion during the passage of the anti defection law to note that the reason for entrusting this important task to the Speaker or Chairman was that, once such a disqualification petition goes outside the control of the House, it might take years and years for the courts to come to a decision due to appeals and further appeals ultimately leading to the matter being forgotten.

"The only purpose of entrusting the work of adjudicating the disqualification petitions to the Speaker/Chairman was to avoid dilly-dallying in the courts of law or the Election Commission’s office," the bench said.

Parliament decided to entrust the important question of adjudication of disqualification petitions, on account of defection, to the Speaker/Chairman expecting him to decide them fearlessly and expeditiously, the court noted.

"With the experience of over 30 years of working of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, the question that we will have to ask ourselves is as to whether the trust which the Parliament entrusted in the high office of the Speaker or the Chairman of avoiding delays in deciding the issue with regard to disqualification has been adhered to by the incumbents in the high office of Speaker and the Chairman or not," the bench asked.