A Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai said the Supreme Court would not remain a silent spectator and watch from the gallery as a Speaker. File
| Photo Credit: PTI
The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 3, 2025) said it has the power and a duty to ensure that Speakers, acting as a quasi-judicial tribunal under the anti-defection law of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, do not sit over disqualification petitions till they “die a natural death” towards the end of the tenure of the House before “throwing them in the dustbin”.
A Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai said the Supreme Court would not remain a silent spectator and watch from the gallery as a Speaker waited till six months before the end of the tenure of a Legislative Assembly only to say “now there is no time left”.
Justice Gavai firmly said the court would not allow the Tenth Schedule to be reduced to a mockery.
The top court is hearing petitions filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi leaders, including K.T. Rama Rao and Padi Kaushik Reddy, seeking timely action by the Telangana Assembly Speaker on disqualification proceedings pending against 10 MLAs who shifted allegiance to the ruling Congress party in the State.
The hearing is centred on the question whether Constitutional courts cannot direct Speakers to decide disqualification petitions within a specified period. The court has upped the ante with this case. In past cases, the top court had stopped short with requesting Speakers to decide such petitions within a “reasonable time” without daring to dictate a deadline.
“We had in the beginning of this case asked if the Speaker was willing to make a statement regarding the period by which he could decide the petitions… Mr. Rohatgi [senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for respondents including the Speaker and the Secretary of Telangana Assembly] had said he had no instructions… So, now we will lay down the period,” Justice Gavai addressed senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, also for the respondents.
During the hearing, the Bench took strong exception after senior advocate C.A. Sundaram, for the petitioners, drew its attention to comments reportedly made on the floor of the House by Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, who had said he was speaking on behalf of the Speaker, dismissing the possibility of any byelection even if the BRS MLAs had defected to the ruling Congress party in the State.
“When the Chief Minister says he is ‘speaking on behalf of the Speaker’, how can you expect the Speaker, who does not correct the Chief Minister, to decide the disqualification petitions dispassionately and on time?” Mr. Sundaram questioned.
Justice Gavai recounted that the top court had let off Mr. Reddy on an earlier occasion, in September 2024, when he had apologised for his comments on the court’s order granting bail to BRS leader K. Kavitha in the Delhi excise policy case.
“We expect the Chief Minister to exercise some restraint. Did we commit a mistake by letting him off in the contempt case? We are really not bothered about what politicians say about us… We exercise self-restraint. The same is expected of the other two wings [executive and legislature],” Justice Gavai voiced the court’s annoyance.
The court reserved the case for judgment.
Published – April 03, 2025 04:59 pm IST