BRS MLAs' Defection To Congress | Supreme Court Prima Facie Says Telangana Speaker Must Take Time-Bound Decision On Disqualification

In the matter pertaining to the defection of 3 MLAs from BRS party to the ruling Congress party in Telangana, the Supreme Court today expressed a prima facie opinion that certain observations in Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra lent support to the petitioners' case and that the observations of the Telangana High Court (Division Bench) with regard to judicial precedents on the issue involved were incorrect.In Subhash Desai, a Constitution Bench of the top Court, while dealing with issues arising out of Shiv Sena rift, had held that the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker shall decide the subject disqualification petition(s) within a "reasonable period". However, subsequently, when pleas were filed claiming that "nothing happened" for months even after the Court's judgment, the Court warned and later fixed timelines to be adhered by the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions.Today, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih adjourned the BRS matter to next Wednesday (April 2), after hearing Senior Advocates Aryama Sundaram and Dama Seshadri Naidu on behalf of the petitioners (BRS MLAs seeking time-bound decision on disqualification pleas). Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the respondents.Addressing the Court on behalf of the petitioners, Sundaram argued that the facts of the case were glaring inasmuch as all 3 sitting MLAs (who defected) campaigned for the Congress party. Infact, one of them, after losing Lok Sabha elections on Congress ticket, was continuing as MLA in BRS party, he said. The senior counsel also pointed out that till 09.09.2024, when the Single Bench of the High Court passed an order asking the Speaker to fix a schedule for hearing in 4 weeks, not even notice was issued by the Speaker on the disqualification petitions.Albeit surprised that even notice was not issued by the Speaker till such time, even though complaints were made as far back as in March, 2024, Justice Gavai commented that the Court was not considering the merits of the case, but rather, whether the High Court can, if the Speaker has not exercised jurisdiction to decide a disqualification petition, direct under Article 226 of the Constitution that the petition be decided in accordance with law in a specific period, and whether the Division Bench was correct in interfering with the order of the Single Bench.Thereafter, Sundaram contended that no notice was given to the leader of the party in terms of the relevant Telangana Rules, and that all 3 MLAs gave similar replies seeking 4 months' time to respond to the disqualification pleas. On this, Justice Gavai commented in jest, "fortunately, they did not ask for 4 years". In response to Sundaram's submission that the Speaker gave 3 weeks' time to the MLAs, the judge added, "atleast here he was reasonable".Subsequently, Sundaram raised a question as to whether a constitutional Court (like Supreme Court) is powerless to require a constitutional authority (like the Telangana Assembly Speaker) to act as per their constitutional mandate? He argued that the answer to the said question needs to be a 'yes', otherwise it would be the end of democracy and of the mandate of the constitutional court to act as the custodian of the Constitution.A second issue raised by Sundaram was - "when the Rules are silent as to time, does that give an absolute largesse to the Speaker, acting as a quasi-judicial authority, to take how much ever time he wants?" Thirdly, the senior counsel argued on the issue of judicial review, submitting,"Judicial review is of some kind of proceeding which has taken place...ours is a case of mandamus not seeking to interdict any proceeding of Speaker, but merely asking the Speaker to discharge his constitutional mandate. It's requiring an action as per Constitution."In support of his submissions, he referred to the decisions in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (5 judges), Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya (5 judges), Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. The Hon'ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly (3 judges) and Subhash Desai (5 judges, wherein reference made to a larger bench is pending) as well as the reference order in S.A. Sampath Kumar v. Kale Yadaiah.Insofar as the 3-judge decision in Meghachandra considered Kihoto and Rajendra Singh Rana, and fixed a time-line for the Manipur Assembly Speaker's deciding of disqualification petitions, but the subsequent 5-judge decision in Subhash Desai did not prescribe any timeline, the bench opined that between decisions rendered by 3 judges and 5 judges, the bench would be bound by the subsequent 5-judge decision and any interference before Speaker's final decision may be impermissible (as held in Kihoto).At this point, Sundaram urged that the question before the Court in the subsequent 5-judge case ie Subhash Desai was whether the disqualification petition had to be decided by the Speaker or could it be decided by the Court. The issue whether a...

BRS MLAs' Defection To Congress | Supreme Court Prima Facie Says Telangana Speaker Must Take Time-Bound Decision On Disqualification

Debby Jain

Tags