Telangana High Court Asks Assembly Speaker To Decide Disqualification Pleas Against MLAs Who Defected From BRS 'Within Reasonable Time'

The Telangana High Court on Friday (November 22) set aside a September order of the single judge which had directed the Secretary of the legislative Assembly to place the disqualification pleas pending against MLAs–who defected from Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS)–before the Assembly Speaker to fix a schedule of hearing within four weeks.In doing so the high court said that Speaker of the Assembly exercises power under the Tenth schedule (which pertains to disqualification on ground of defection) to the Constitution which is subject to judicial review. It added that while the Speaker is required to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable time, but what would be this time depends on facts of each case. In the present matter the high court asked the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions within a reasonable time while keeping in "mind the concept of reasonable time". Referring to the various Supreme Court decisions on the issue including the constitution bench's judgment in Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu, a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao in its 78 page order said, "...it is evident that the Speaker is the Authority to decide the disqualification petitions, who exercises the powers under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Speaker is a high constitutional functionary. Our society is governed by rule of law and the Constitution is the supreme. The Speaker exercises power under the Tenth Schedule and the same is subject to judicial review on the grounds set out in Kihoto Hollohan (supra) and as referred to by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Rana (supra) and Subhash Desai (supra). The Speaker of the Assembly is required to decide the disqualification petitions within a reasonable time. What would be the reasonable time depends in the facts and circumstances of each case". BackgroundBefore the single judge, petitions were filed seeking disqualification of three BRS MLAs Danam Nagender, Kadiyam Srihari and Tellam Venkat Rao. In one of the appeals, Respondent No. 5 Danam Nagender had contested elections to the legislative state assembly from Bharat Rashtra Samithi ('BRS'). He had filed his nomination on November 6, 2023 as a candidate of BRS from Khairatabad. He was then elected on December 12, 2023 as a Member of the Telangana State Legislative Assembly. Thereafter on March 15 Nagender "voluntarily gave up the membership" of BRS and joined Indian National Congress (INC). Then Respondent 1 Alleti Maheshwar Reddy along with other Members of the Legislative Assembly, met the Speaker and submitted a petition on July 1 seeking Nagender's disqualification under Paragraph 2 (1) of the Tenth Schedule read with Article 191 (2) of the Constitution of India and under Rule 6 of Members of Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on the ground of Defection) Rules, 1986.However, the aforesaid disqualification petition failed to evoke any response from the Speaker of the House. Thereafter a writ petition was filed on July 9 before the single judge assailing inaction on the part of the Assembly Speaker in not deciding the petition for disqualification and a direction was sought to decide the disqualification petition within three months.On September 9, the single judge had directed the Secretary of Telangana Legislative Assembly to forthwith place the petition seeking disqualification before the Speaker, Telangana Legislative Assembly for fixing a schedule of hearing within a period of four weeks. Disposing of the plea the single judge had further directed the Secretary to communicate the schedule so fixed to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court. It was also directed that in case no communication is received from the Secretary the matter will be reopened suo motu and appropriate orders shall be passed. Against this order the Telangana Legislative Assembly had moved the division bench in appeals. The appellant argued before the division bench that the writ petitions were filed hurriedly without without waiting for a reasonable time to enable the Speaker to take a decision on the petition seeking disqualification. It was contended that in the writ petition, intemperate language has been used against the Speaker who is a constitutional functionary, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.It was submitted that the only course open to the Single Judge was to refer the matter either to the Division Bench or the Full Bench of this Court. It was further submitted that the Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the issue involved in writ petitions was referred by a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in S.A.Sampath Kumar vs. Kale Yadaiah (2021) to a Constitution Bench. It was contended that the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available only after a decision is taken by the Speaker and no direction can be issued to the Speaker to decide a petition for...

Telangana High Court Asks Assembly Speaker To Decide Disqualification Pleas Against MLAs Who Defected From BRS 'Within Reasonable Time'

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags