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
Post a Comment