Defection, Delay, and the Speaker’s Duty: The Supreme Court’s Stance

Padi Kaushik Reddy etc. v. The State of Telangana and Ors etc.

The petitioners, Padi Kaushik Reddy and Kuna Pandu Vivekanand filed a Special Leave Petition (“SLP”) in the Supreme Court (“SC”) of India, challenging a judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court (“HC”) of Telangana, which set aside the judgment of a Single Judge bench of the HC.

Factual Matrix

In the General Elections to the Telangana Legislative Assembly (“TLA”), Danam Nagender, Venkata Rao, and Kadiyam Srihari filed their nomination as candidates of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (“BRS”) on 6^th and 9^th of November, 2023 respectively. They won the election from their respective constituencies on 3^rd of December, 2023, but the Indian National Congress (“INC”) emerged as the single largest party and formed the government.

The petitioners allege that in the months of March and April of 2024, Danam Nagender, Venkata Rao, and Kadiyam Srihari joined the INC. Subsequently, the petitioners, who are themselves are MLAs belonging to BRS, filed separate petitions under the Tenth Schedule, Article 191(2), and the Members of Telangana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 before the TLA with a common prayer for a declaration of from the Speaker of the TLA that the MLAs from BRS who joined the INC be disqualified from continuing as members of the TLA. However, the Speaker did not address the petitions.

Aggrieved by the lack of action on part of the Speaker, the petitioners then filed three separate Writ Petitions before the HC. On 9^th September, 2024, the learned Single Judge of the HC directed the Secretary of the TLA to place the disqualification petitions before the Speaker for fixing a schedule of hearing within a period of four weeks from the date of order, and to further communicate the schedule to the Registrar of the HC. The HC also clarified that if inaction continues on part of the Speaker, the matter would be reopened in court.

The Secretary of the TLA took exception from the judgment and preferred three separate intra-court appeals, meaning the matter moved up to the Division Bench in the HC. The Division bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge bench and disposed of the intra-court Writ appeals. Further aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed the present appeal by way of SLP and prayed to direct the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions in a time-bound manner and preferably within 4 weeks.

Submissions of the Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that in the 5 months between the date of filing of the petition before the Single Judge bench of the HC and the date of order, the Speaker had not even issued a notice in the disqualification petitions. The Single Judge bench took the above fact into consideration and issued a direction that the Speaker should fix a schedule of hearing within 4 weeks from the date of said order.

Even after the order of the Single Bench, the Speaker did not take any action for 4 months. It is only after the filing of this SLP on 15^th January, 2025 that the Speaker issued a notice to the delinquent MLAs on 16^th January, 2025. Since the Speaker was acting in a lackadaisical manner, the petitioners submitted that the Single Judge bench was completely justified in issuing directions to the Secretary of the TLA.

On the basis of precedents, such as Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Ors., Rajendra Singh Rana & Ors. v. Swami Prasad Maurya & Ors., Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra & Ors., and Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly & Ors., the petitioners submitted that the Single Judge bench would have been justified in even directing the disqualification petitions to be decided within a specified period, but the bench exercised restraint and showed respect to the position of the Speaker and only issued a direction to the Secretary to fix a schedule of the hearing.

Additionally, the petitioners submitted that unnecessarily prolonging the disqualification proceedings and not taking them to a logical end frustrates the very purpose of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India. The MLAs after being elected to the TLA from BRS, contested and lost the Lok Sabha Election from INC, but are still enjoying the Office of MLA, which they originally contested from the party of BRS. This situation is nothing less than a fraud on democracy and this is a fit case wherein the Court should direct the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions within a specified period of time.

Submissions of the Respondents

The respondents, on the contrary, submitted that the Division Bench of HC has rightly applied the decisions given in the cases of Rajendra Singh Rana, Kihoto Hollohan, and Subhash Desai. They submitted that a court cannot issue timelines to the Speaker for deciding the matter within a particular period because the HC does not have the power of judicial superintendence over the functioning of the Speaker as a Tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court in Kihoto Hollohan categorically stated that the HC cannot pass any order prior to the decision made by the Speaker.

The respondents further claimed that the court wrongly decided the case of Keisham Meghachandra Singh by not taking into consideration the law laid down in Kihoto Hollohan and Ranjendra Singh Rana in the correct perspective. Keisham Meghachandra specified a timeline for the Speaker to decide the disqualifying petition in, which even the case of Subhash Desai did not do. Therefore, the Division Bench was correct in reversing the decision of the Single Judge bench.

Court’s Decision and Reasoning

The SC found that the Division Bench of the HC erred in interfering with the order of the Single Judge bench of the HC. The very reason that the Parliament had entrusted the task of adjudicating disqualification petitions to the Speaker was so that the Speaker can act in an expeditious manner and the petition does not get stuck in the time-consuming procedures of the Court. However, the Speaker did not issue a notice for seven months, and only issued when the matter was listed before the Court. This does not depict any sort of expeditious manner of adjudicating the petition and hence, warrants the court to at least issue direction to the Secretary of the TLA to simply place the petitions before the Speaker and fix a schedule for the hearing. The Single Judge bench did not issue any direction to decide the disqualification proceedings within a time-bound period.

The SC believes that a failure to issue any direction to the Speaker would frustrate the very purpose for which the Tenth Schedule has been brought to the Constitution. Hence, the SC ruled that the Speaker must conclude the disqualification proceedings pending as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of this judgment.

About the Author

Sia Shah

Ppma_guest_author

Sia Shah is a student of Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar. She has a deep-rooted interest in constitutional principles, legal policy, and recent contemporary developments in the realm of law. With past experience in contribution to thematic reports to Special Rapporteur of the UN, as well as internships at District Courts and High Court of Gujarat, she aims to hone her skills and ability for the betterment of society, and contribute meaningfully to it.

View All Posts