New Delhi, Feb 3 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday sought clarity from the Telangana Legislative Assembly on what constitutes a “reasonable period” for deciding disqualification pleas against three defecting MLAs.
A Bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, asked Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Secretary of the Telangana Legislative Assembly, to seek instructions from the Speaker on the timeline.
“You tell us what is reasonable time in your perception,” Justice Gavai remarked, listing the matter for further hearing on February 10.
The issue arose when the Telangana High Court’s Single Bench directed the Speaker to fix a schedule for hearing disqualification petitions within four weeks.
However, this decision was overturned by a Division Bench, which relied on the Constitution Bench’s judgment in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, emphasizing that disqualification petitions must be decided within a “reasonable period.”
The disqualification pleas pertain to MLAs Venkata Rao Tellam, Kadiyam Srihari, and Danam Nagender, who were elected on BRS tickets but later defected to the ruling Congress Party in Telangana.
BRS MLAs Kuna Pandu Vivekananda, Padi Kaushik Reddy, and BJP MLA Alleti Maheshwar Reddy moved the Telangana High Court, challenging the Speaker’s inaction for over three months. They argued that the delay could facilitate further defections.
Counsel representing the defecting MLAs and the State questioned the maintainability of the petition, contending that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the Speaker.
On September 9, the Single Bench directed the Speaker to schedule hearings within four weeks. The Speaker, through the Telangana Legislative Assembly, appealed against this judgment.
In November 2024, the Division Bench set aside the Single Bench’s order, stating that the Speaker must act within a reasonable time but left the specific timeline undefined.
The High Court emphasized that while dealing with disqualification petitions, the Speaker must consider the period of pendency, the purpose of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, and the tenure of the Assembly. “Four and a half months have already lapsed since filing the petitions. Action must be taken in consonance with the Rules,” the Division Bench noted.
Dissatisfied with the Division Bench’s ruling, MLA Padi Kaushik Reddy moved to the Supreme Court, seeking intervention to ensure a prompt decision on the disqualification pleas.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu, along with AoR P Mohith Rao and Advocates J Akshitha, Eugene S Philomene, and Rahul Reddy. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared as the Telangana Legislative Assembly Secretary, while AAG T Rajnikant Reddy represented the State.
The Court in the next hearing is expected to set crucial guidelines for the timely resolution of such disputes in legislative assemblies.
