Supreme Court Pulls Up Telangana Speaker Over Delay in Defection Cases

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has once again intervened to reinforce constitutional discipline under the anti-defection law, sharply criticising the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker for prolonged delay in deciding disqualification petitions against rebel Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) MLAs. Granting a final two-week deadline, the Court warned that continued inaction would undermine the authority of constitutional institutions and the rule of law.


Background of the Dispute

The case arises from petitions filed by senior BRS leaders, including K T Rama Rao (KTR), challenging the Speaker’s inaction on disqualification pleas against 10 BRS MLAs who allegedly defected to the ruling Congress party after the 2023 Telangana Assembly elections.

Out of these:

  • Seven disqualification petitions have already been rejected by the Speaker

  • Three petitions remain pending, triggering the present round of litigation

The delay directly violates a July 31, 2025 Supreme Court judgment, which mandated that the Speaker decide the disqualification pleas within three months.


Supreme Court’s Observations and Directions

Bench Composition

  • Justice Sanjay Karol

  • Justice A.G. Masih

Key Directions

The Court categorically stated:

“We are giving you two weeks. Finish it by then.”

The bench directed the Speaker to:

  • Complete the disqualification process within two weeks

  • File an affidavit of compliance detailing steps taken

The matter has been posted after two weeks to monitor progress.


Contempt Allegations by BRS Leaders

Petition by K T Rama Rao

KTR filed a contempt petition, alleging that the Speaker deliberately violated the Supreme Court’s time-bound directions, thereby:

  • Undermining judicial authority

  • Shielding defected MLAs for political reasons

According to BRS leaders, the delay has allowed defected MLAs to:

  • Continue as legislators

  • Influence legislative outcomes

  • Distort democratic accountability


Speaker’s Defence Before the Court

Submissions by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi

Appearing for Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar, Singhvi cited:

  • The Speaker’s hospitalisation for eye surgery (January 8–10)

  • Appointment of a new Assembly Secretary on December 26

  • Disposal of seven disqualification petitions as evidence of compliance

He submitted a detailed chart showing:

  • Five petitions closed on December 17

  • Two more decided on January 15

MLAs Against Whom Petitions Were Rejected

  • Kale Yadaiah

  • Pocharam Srinivas Reddy

  • Tellam Venkat Rao

  • Bandla Krishna Mohan Reddy

  • T Prakash Goud

  • Gudem Mahipal Reddy

  • Arekapudi Gandhi

Pending Matters

  • Petition against M Sanjay Kumar – judgment reserved

  • Petitions against Kadiyam Srihari and Danam Nagendar – enquiry pending

Singhvi argued that two weeks was insufficient, citing procedural requirements such as replies and counter-submissions.


Opposition to Further Delay

Arguments by BRS Counsel

Senior advocate Dama Sesadari Naidu strongly opposed any extension, stating that:

  • The Speaker had already violated a clear Supreme Court deadline

  • Continued delay amounted to an assault on the dignity of the Court

  • Constitutional accountability cannot be sacrificed for administrative excuses

The Court accepted this concern and refused to grant additional time beyond two weeks.


Constitutional and Statutory Framework Involved

Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India

  • Governs disqualification on grounds of defection

  • Empowers the Speaker as the adjudicating authority

  • Requires decisions to be taken in a fair and timely manner

Members of Telangana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986

  • Provide procedural framework for:

    • Filing disqualification petitions

    • Conducting enquiries

    • Passing reasoned orders

Article 212 of the Constitution

  • Bars judicial interference in legislative procedure

  • Does not protect unconstitutional delay or mala fide inaction


Relevant Judicial Precedents

Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu (1992)

  • Upheld Speaker’s power under the Tenth Schedule

  • Subjected Speaker’s decisions to judicial review

Keisham Meghachandra Singh v Speaker, Manipur Assembly (2020)

  • Held that Speakers must decide disqualification pleas within a reasonable period

  • Suggested a three-month outer limit

  • Warned against Speakers acting under political influence

July 31, 2025 Supreme Court Judgment (Present Case Lineage)

  • Explicitly fixed a three-month deadline

  • Forms the basis of the present contempt allegations


Supreme Court’s Institutional Concern

The bench underscored that:

  • Delay in deciding defection cases distorts electoral mandates

  • Speakers cannot act as political shields

  • Failure to comply invites judicial scrutiny and potential contempt

The Court’s insistence on an affidavit reflects heightened concern over systemic misuse of Speaker’s discretion.


Political Fallout and Public Statements

Following the hearing, K T Rama Rao accused the Congress government of:

  • Making a “mockery of the Constitution”

  • Corrupting the Speaker’s office under political pressure

  • Disrespecting the authority of the Supreme Court

He alleged that:

  • Evidence of defection exists

  • Denial of defection is an insult to legislative sanctity

The Congress party and the Speaker’s office did not issue any response to the Court’s directive.


Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s two-week ultimatum marks a critical assertion of constitutional supremacy over political expediency. By insisting on time-bound adjudication under the Tenth Schedule, the Court has reaffirmed that anti-defection law is not optional, and that Speakers cannot delay decisions to suit ruling parties.

The outcome of this case will have significant implications for:

  • Speaker neutrality

  • Anti-defection jurisprudence

  • Democratic accountability in state legislatures


Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Encroachment on Public Land: A Growing Threat to Governance and Public Welfare

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Equality Before Law

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores