Supreme Court Questions Mechanism Of Entrusting Speaker To Decide Disqualification Issues On Defection Ground

The Supreme Court observed that it is for the Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting the Speaker or Chairman of the Legislative Assembly to decide the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection, is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections.

The Court observed thus while allowing Civil Appeals filed by BRS (Bharat Rashtra Samithi) leaders challenging the Telangana High Court’s refusal to direct the Assembly Speaker to decide disqualification Petitions against MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly) who defected to the ruling Congress party.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih remarked, “Though, we do not possess any advisory jurisdiction, it is for the Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting the Speaker/Chairman the important task of deciding the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection, is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections or not? 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. However, at the cost of repetition, we observe that it is for the Parliament to take a call on that.”

The Bench said that 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.

“We need not answer this question, since the facts of the various cases we have referred to hereinabove themselves provide the answer”, it added.

Senior Advocates C. Aryama Sundaram, Dama Seshadri Naidu, and Gandra Mohan Rao appeared for the Appellants while Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Gaurav Agrawal, and S. Niranjan Reddy appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

In November 2023, on the recommendation of the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Governor of Telangana State issued a notification for General Election to the State Legislative Assembly. Pursuantly, one Danam Nagender filed his nomination as a candidate of BRS from the Khairatabad Assembly Constituency. Similarly, two others namely Venkata Rao Tellam and Kadiyam Srihari filed their nomination from Bhadrachalam Assembly Constituency and Ghanpur Station Constituency as candidates of BRS. Thereafter, the elections were held and the results were declared in December 2023. The said three persons won the election from their respective constituency. The Indian National Congress (INC) emerged as the single largest party and it along with its ally formed the Government. The Appellants alleged that in March 2024, Danam Nagender joined INC and the other two BRS members also joined the same.

Subsequently, the Appellants namely Padi Kaushik Reddy and Kuna Pandu Vivekanand who themselves were MLAs belonging to BRS, filed separate Petitions under Paragraph 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule read with Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India and Rules 6(1) and 6(2) of the Members of Telangana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 before the Telangana State Legislative Assembly. The common prayer was for a declaration from the Speaker that the BRS MLAs who joined INC be declared as disqualified from continuing as MLAs. Aggrieved by the inaction/delay in deciding the Disqualification Petitions, the Appellants filed Writ Petitions before the High Court. The Single Judge directed the Secretary of Legislative Assembly to forthwith place the Disqualification Petitions before the Speaker for fixing a schedule of hearing. The Secretary preferred intra-Court Appeals and the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s Judgment. Being aggrieved, the Appellants were before the Apex Court.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “It can therefore be seen that 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 then Law Minister, who was himself an eminent lawyer, referred to a matter in which he had appeared before the courts seeking restoration of his party’s rights to use a party symbol. However, by the time his party’s right was restored by the courts, his party had already won the election on another symbol. The then Law Minister expressed that such a type of delay should not be tolerated and that they wanted a quick decision.”

The Court observed that the Speaker did not even find it necessary to issue notices in the Petitions filed by the Petitioners for a period of more than seven months and only after the proceedings were filed before the Supreme Court, did the Speaker find it necessary to issue notice.

“The question, therefore, that we ask ourselves is as to whether the Speaker has acted in an expeditious manner, when expedition was one of the main reasons, why the Parliament had entrusted the important task of adjudicating disqualification petitions to the Speaker/Chairman. Non-issuance of any notice for a period of more than seven months and issuing notice only after either the proceedings were filed before this Court, or after this Court had heard the matter for the first time cannot by any stretch be envisaged as acting in an expeditious manner”, it further remarked.

The Court was of the view that 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 and if no direction is issued, it will amount to permitting the Speaker to repeat the widely criticized situation of “operation successful, patient died”.

“In any event, we find that there was absolutely no occasion for the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court to have interfered with the well-reasoned order of the learned Single Judge, as learned Single Judge had only asked the Speaker to fix a schedule of hearing (filing of pleadings, documents, personal hearing etc.) within a period of four weeks. The learned Single Judge had not even issued any direction to decide the disqualification proceedings within a time-bound period. We, therefore, find that the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court”, it held.

Conclusion

The Court said that there was no occasion for the Secretary, Telangana Legislative Assembly to have challenged the Order passed by the Single Judge inasmuch as nothing adverse could be found in the same.

“… we ourselves should decide the question with regard to the disqualification as was done by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Rana (supra). … In that respect, it is pertinent to note that all the judgments of the Constitution Bench, right from Kihoto Hollohan (supra) to Subhash Desai (supra), 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”, it added.

The Court also clarified that the Speaker, while acting as an adjudicating authority in Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, acts as a Tribunal amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

“While doing so, we are also reminded of the finding of the Constitution Bench that the Speaker/Chairman, while acting as an adjudicating authority under Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution does not enjoy the constitutional immunity as available either under Article 122 or 212 of the Constitution”, it concluded.

The Court directed that the Speaker would not permit any of the MLAs who are sought to be disqualified to protract the proceedings.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the impugned Judgment, and directed the Speaker to conclude the disqualification proceedings against 10 MLAs as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within three months.

Cause Title- Padi Kaushik Reddy Etc. v. The State of Telangana and Others Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 912)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocates C. Aryama Sundaram, Dama Seshadri Naidu, Gandra Mohan Rao, AORs P. Mohith Rao, Vikas Mehta, Advocates J Akshitha, J Venkat Sai, Eugene S Philomene, Zafar Inayat Ganai, Rahul Jayapala Reddy, Shubhankar Sharma, Rohini Musa, Abhishek Gupta, Basa Mithun Shashank, Anthony Reddy Katakam, and R.V. Pavan Maitreya.

Respondents: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Gaurav Agrawal, S. Niranjan Reddy, AAG T. Rajnikant Reddy, AORs Sravan Kumar Karanam, Hitendra Nath Rath, Neha Rai, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Sumanth Nookala, Devina Sehgal, Aruna Gupta, Ankit Agarwal, Mukesh Kumar, D. Abhinav Rao, Advocates Priyansha Sharma, Lavkesh Bhambhani, Aniket Singh, Kumar Abhishek, Laxmi, Aarati Sah, Diya Purohit, Akhila Palem Rami Reddy, Meeran Maqbool, Vivek Rajan D.B, Kumar Vaibhaw, S. Uday Bhanu, Vineet George, Ramesh Allanki, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Koustubh Desai, Yashaswi SK Chocksey, Madhup Kumar Tiwari, Megha Shaw, Abhisek Das, and Raghav Bherwani.

Click here to read/download the Judgment