Telangana High Court orders Speaker to fix schedule for hearing disqualification pleas against defected BRS MLAs

The Telangana High Court on Monday directed the Secretary of the State Legislative Assembly to place before Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar the disqualification petitions filed against three Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leaders who defected to the Congress..Justice B Vijaysen Reddy noted that despite the conclusion of arguments on the disqualification pleas in August 2024, there was no information about their status. Consequently, the petitioners made out a special case and were entitled to relief in these writ petitions, the judge added.While disposing of the matter, the Court clarified that if no action is taken within four weeks, the matter will be reopened suo motu, and appropriate orders will be issued..The Court was hearing petitions filed by BRS Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) Kuna Pandu Vivekananda and Padi Kaushik Reddy, as well as Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, challenging the inaction of the Speaker in deciding the disqualification petitions against MLAs Venkata Rao Tellam, Kadiyam Srihari and Danam Nagender.The three MLAs were elected on a BRS ticket but defected to the Congress party, which is currently in power in the State..The petitioner's counsel argued that the disqualification petitions were filed against MLAs in April this year, but the Speaker hadn't received the same. It was contended that the refusal of the Speaker or Secretary of the Legislative Assembly to receive the petitions constituted an abdication of duty and a violation of the constitutional mandate..In contrast, the State argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable. It contended that the conduct of the parties, the manner in which the writ petitions were filed, and the unwarranted and intemperate allegations made against the Speaker did not warrant any indulgence from the Court.Counsel vehemently contended that the disqualification petitions were not maintainable given the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan’s case..The Court rejected this argument and noted that,“It cannot be said that the Speaker can wait for five years, until the completion of the term of the house and still Court should lay off its hands. Such approach would be against Constitutional Mandate and antithetical to democratic principles. If the judgment in KIHOTO HOLLOHAN's case is construed in the manner canvassed by the learned Advocate General and other learned senior counsel, then there may arise a situation where the party would not have any remedy if the Speaker declines to take any decision in the disqualification petition.".The Court also rejected the State counsel's argument that the Speaker cannot be directed to decide disqualification petitions within a specified time frame."If the contention of the learned Advocate General and other learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents that this Court can never give directions to the Speaker to decide disqualification within a time frame, is to be accepted, then the question that would arise is how long the inaction or indecision of the Speaker to be tolerated by this Court," it noted..The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Keisham Meghachandra Singh's case and clarified that it was permissible to issue directions to the Speaker to decide a disqualification petition within a specified time frame.With these observations, the Court directed the Speaker to hear the disqualification pleas related to defected MLAs within four weeks.Senior Advocates C Aryama Sundaram, Gandra Mohan Rao, Ramchander Rao, and Advocate Gummala Bhaskar Reddy appeared for the petitioners.Advocate General P Sri Raghuram and Senior Advocates Shankar Jandhyala, B Mayur Reddy, A Ravinder Reddy, K Pradeep Reddy, and Mohd Omer Farooq appeared for the respondents..[Read Order]