Telangana High Court Directs Speaker to Set Hearing Date for Pleas Challenging BRS MLA Defections.
(Judicial Quest News Network)
Hyderabad, 10, September, 2024
In a significant judicial development, the Telangana High Court has directed the Secretary of the State Legislative Assembly to present disqualification petitions against three Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) legislators who defected to the Congress Party. The court’s order, issued on Monday, mandates that these petitions be placed before the Speaker, Gardeep Prasad Kumar, for timely resolution.
Justice B. Vijay Sen Reddy, presiding over the case, noted that despite the conclusion of arguments on the disqualification petitions in August 2024, there had been no update on their status. This delay prompted the court to acknowledge the urgency of the matter and grant relief to the petitioners. The court emphasized that if no action is taken within the next four weeks, it will reopen the case suo motu (on its own accord) and issue appropriate orders.
The petitions in question were filed by BRS MLAs Pandu Vivekananda and Pari Kaushik Reddy, as well as BJP MLA Aleti Maheshwar Reddy. They are challenging the Speaker’s inaction regarding disqualification petitions against MLAs Venkatarao, Telugu Srihari, and Danam Nagendra. These MLAs, initially elected on BRS tickets, had defected to the Congress Party, which is currently in power in the state.
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the disqualification petitions were filed in April of this year but had not been acknowledged by the Speaker. This inaction, they contended, constituted a dereliction of duty and a violation of constitutional mandates. They asserted that the Speaker’s refusal to address these petitions undermines democratic processes and the rule of law.
In response, the state argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable, claiming that the conduct of the parties and the allegations against the Speaker did not warrant judicial intervention. The state’s legal team, including the Advocate General P.C. Raghuram and senior advocates Shankar Jandiala, B. Mayur Reddy, Ravindra Reddy, K. Pradeep Reddy, and Muhammad Umar Farooq, contended that the Supreme Court’s precedent in the Kihoto Hollohan case should guide the court’s decision. They argued that directing the Speaker to resolve disqualification petitions within a specific timeframe was not permissible.
“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 (2 supra) 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, however, rejected these arguments, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in the Megha Chandra Singh case, which allows for judicial directions to the Speaker regarding the timely resolution of disqualification petitions. Justice Reddy emphasized that if the court were to accept the state’s argument, it would imply an indefinite tolerance for inaction by the Speaker, which the court deemed unacceptable.
In light of these observations, the Telangana High Court has ordered that the Speaker must address the disqualification pleas concerning the defected MLAs within four weeks. This ruling underscore the judiciary’s role in ensuring that legislative processes are adhered to and that elected officials are held accountable for their actions.
“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”.”
Senior advocates C.R. Yadava, Sundaram Mohan Rao, Ramchandra Rao, and advocate Mala Bhaskar Reddy represented the petitioners in the case. The decision marks a crucial step in the ongoing legal and political drama surrounding the defection of BRS legislators and their subsequent disqualification.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
