Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
“Speaker Does Not Enjoy Constitutional Immunity While Acting As Tribunal”: Supreme Court Directs Telangana Speaker To Decide Disqualification Of Defector MLAs In 3 Months
|The Supreme Court today allowed appeals filed by BRS leaders challenging the Telangana High Court’s refusal to direct the Assembly Speaker to decide disqualification petitions against MLAs who defected to the ruling Congress party.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that political defections pose a serious threat to democratic stability, and reiterated that the Speaker, when adjudicating such disputes, functions as a tribunal subject to judicial review.
“Political defections has been a matter of national discourse. If not curbed, it has the power to disrupt democracy,” said CJI Gavai, delivering the judgment. The Court referred to parliamentary speeches by leaders, including Rajesh Pilot and Devendra Nath Munshi to emphasise the importance of curbing defections.
CJI Gavai stated that the constitutional scheme entrusting the Speaker with the responsibility of deciding disqualification proceedings was designed to ensure expeditious adjudication, without burdening the courts. The judgment also took note of Kihoto Hollohan, reiterating that judicial review under Articles 136, 226, and 227 remains limited but available.
The Court held that the Division Bench had erred in interfering with the order passed by a Single Judge. “The Single Judge had not even directed time-bound disposal to the Speaker,” the Chief Justice said.
“Speaker while acting as an adjudicating authority acts as a tribunal amenable to the jurisdiction of High Court and Supreme Court. Speaker while acting so does not enjoy constitutional immunity,” the Court held.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench’s order dated November 22, 2024.
Disposing of the matter, the Court directed that the disqualification proceedings against the 10 MLAs be decided “as expeditiously as possible and within three months.” The Court added, “Any MLA shall not be allowed to protract the proceeding,” and warned that if any MLA attempts to do so, “the Speaker shall be at liberty to draw adverse inferences.”
Background
On April 3, 2025, the Court had reserved its judgment and expressed strong disapproval of remarks made by Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy on the floor of the Assembly regarding pending disqualification petitions. The Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih questioned the Speaker’s silence and observed, “We respect the other two wings of democracy; the same is expected of the other two wings.” Referring to the CM’s statement, Justice Gavai remarked, “Was the CM not expected to at least exercise some degree of restraint? Did we commit a mistake by letting you go at that time and not taking action for contempt?”
The Court also took note of the CM telling the House, “There will be no bye-elections even if the opposition MLAs want a bye-election. It won't happen,” while addressing the Speaker, who did not object.
Cause Title: Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telengana & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 2353-2354/2025)