We Respect Other Wings Of Democracy, Expect Same From Them: Supreme Court Slams Telangana CM For Remarks In Assembly

The Supreme Court today raised concerns over Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy’s remarks on the floor of the Telangana Legislative Assembly regarding bye-elections and questioned whether it had erred in not issuing a contempt notice to him earlier.

The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masiah was hearing a plea filed by BRS MLA Padi Kaushik Reddy, seeking directions to the Telangana Assembly Speaker for a timely decision on disqualification petitions against three MLAs who defected from the BRS to the ruling Congress party.

The Supreme Court took note of the remarks, and Justice Gavai remarked that the Supreme Court exercises self-restraint and respects the other two wings of democracy and that the same is expected of the other two wings.

Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram appeared for the petitioners, while Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the Telangana Assembly Speaker and Secretary. The matter was heard in part yesterday, when Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi had argued on behalf of another Respondent.

Court Disapproves CM’s Statements

During the hearing, Sundaram presented the official transcript and tape from the live telecast of the Telangana Assembly proceedings, highlighting statements made by CM Revanth Reddy. The transcript, read before the Court, contained the CM’s assertion that “no bye-elections will take place” even if opposition MLAs sought them.

Initially, Justice Gavai did not insist on seeing the transcript. "He (Singhvi) is not appearing for him; he is not appearing for the Hon'ble Chief Minister," he said.

Singhvi submitted, "I have been part of that body also; these are done in the heat of the moment, but the provocation appears to be very strange. I will rather not say...they are saying and I am not agreeing; these things happen in legislations....overlapping sides, getting up and saying we know this is happening, this is coming in SC today, this is coming in SC tomorrow; these kinds of statements are made."

Sundram argued, "Please see them...Facts speak for themselves."

J. Gavai said, "We will not do...forget about it."

Sundaram submitted, "Please see, he tells the speaker, but the speaker does not interfere at all."

Sundaram read, "Mr. Speaker, I am telling on your behalf to everyone present in the assembly that they need not worry about any bye-elections in the future. No bye-elections will come. There will be no bye-elections even if the opposition MLAs want a bye-election. It won't happen. Whether they come here, or stay there, there will be no bye-elections."

Sundram further submitted, "Then the BRS MLA claimed that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court and hence should not be discussed."

Sundram read, "Harish Rao.. reminded us that the case is sub-judice before the Supreme Court. If I speak inside the House, there is some protection. But those who speak outside do not have any protection. This House is immune for certain laws. We can mention some things in the House. There is a protection under your leadership. There is a saying that bye-elections will be held next week or the other week. This is all nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Nothing is going to happen. Nothing is going to change. And no one needs to worry. There is no need to focus on bye-elections, etc."

Justice Gavai questioned the Speaker’s silence when the CM made such remarks.

“How can I reasonably expect him to finish this matter? The Speaker should have said, ‘Please don’t speak on my behalf; I am not subscribing to this.’ But he kept quiet. How can I expect the Speaker to decide in a reasonable time?” Sundaram submitted.

The Bench also noted that a BRS MLA had urged the CM not to discuss a matter subjudice before the Supreme Court, but the CM insisted on his right to speak.

Supreme Court’s Concern Over Separation of Powers

Disapproving of the CM’s comments, Justice Gavai posed a direct question to Singhvi: “Having experience on an earlier occasion, 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?”

Justice Gavai further emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance between the three pillars of democracy. “We (the Supreme Court) exercise self-restraint. We respect the other two wings of democracy; the same is expected of the other two wings,” he remarked.

Singhvi Defends Speaker, Cites Provocation

Singhvi, while not representing the Speaker, argued that the transcript was being selectively read and that provocations from the opposition had led to heated exchanges in the Assembly. He sought time to produce the complete transcript. However, Justice Gavai pointed out that the petitioners had already placed the full transcript before the Court.

The Supreme Court ultimately reserved its orders in the matter.

Background

The petitions before the Supreme Court sought the Telangana Assembly Speaker’s expeditious decision on the disqualification of certain MLAs who defected from the BRS to the Congress. The petitioners have argued that an inordinate delay in deciding such matters undermines democratic principles and the anti-defection law.

Cause Title: Padi Kaushik Reddy v. The State of Telangana