‘Telangana CM Is Making A Mockery Of The Tenth Schedule…’, SC On CM’s Statement In House On Bye-Elections

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday deplored the statement made by the Telangana chief minister A Revanth Reddy, on the floor of the House, that no bye-elections will take place even if BRS MLAs switch sides to the Congress party, saying, “Honourable CM is making a mockery of the Tenth Schedule…”.

The matter was heard by a bench led by Justice B R Gavai and comprising Justice Augustine George Masih. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented the assembly speaker before the bench. The speaker acts as quasi-judicial tribunals under the anti-defection law. The apex court observed that if the speaker does not decide the disqualification petitions for 4 years, wouldn’t it be making a mockery of the nation?

During the hearing, Senior advocate C A Sundaram, representing the petitioners’ side, cited a statement made by Telangana CM in the assembly, in March this year. Sundaram said the Congress CM said that the BRS MLAs, who defected to Congress, need not worry about bye-elections, and no bye-elections will happen even if they (BRS) decide to have one for their seats, there will be none and if their members switch sides there would be no bye-elections. “If this is said on the floor of the House, then your Honourable CM is making a mockery of the Tenth Schedule (the anti-defection law)”, said Justice Gavai. Rohatgi said he is not appearing for the CM before the bench and countered that the assembly proceedings were not in question in the present case.

Justice Gavai said that something being said in "Ramleela Maidan" is different from something said on the floor of the House, and added that when politicians say something in the assembly, it has some sanctity.

Justice Gavai said if the speaker of an assembly does not act at all, then the courts in this country, which not only have the power but also a duty as guardian of the Constitution, would not be powerless. “Suppose out of a term of five years, if the defection happens in the first month and for four years the speaker does not do anything, still the court should….”, asked Justice Gavai.

Rohatgi replied that the court could request but the court cannot give a direction to decide the issue tomorrow. Justice Gavai said the single judge of the high court had only requested to frame a schedule within a period of four weeks, and the judge did not direct that it should be decided in a particular period, and asked, “where is the occasion for the division bench to interfere?”

Justice Gavai said whatever the court would decide, it would request the speaker and appreciate that the request is considered in right earnest, and if the request is followed in breach, then the powers of this court, under the Article 142 of the Constitution are not powerless. “Be it any constitutional functionary. If the request or directions of this court are not abided, this court is not powerless”, said Justice Gavai.

The bench said, “to say that no direction or request could be made to decide in a reasonable period is something…”. Rohatgi said he is not saying no to the reasonable period. The bench questioned, you take 11 months to issue notice on disqualification petition, only after the apex court issues notice on the petitions?

The bench was informed that on March 18, April 2, and April 8, there were three disqualification petitions filed before the speaker of the Telangana legislative assembly, and the first writ was instituted on April 10. Justice Gavai said that must be pursuant to the first petition filed on March 18, and “you do not require 22 days to issue notice….”. The bench was informed that the election result was declared in December 2023, and the defection took place on March 15, 2024. The bench said the other side expeditiously filed the first disqualification petition.

The bench asked Rohatgi, “please give the date on which you (the speaker) issue notice?” Rohatgi replied that notice was issued on January 16, 2025. “In your perception, the period between March 18 and January 16, 2025, is a reasonable period?”, asked the bench. Rohatgi replied that it is not the reasonable period but because of writ petitions which were filed in the court, what would the speaker do? And, the speaker would have to wait for the high court to decide, what else would he do?

The apex court will continue to hear the matter on Thursday.

The apex court was hearing arguments on pleas filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi leaders, including K.T. Rama Rao and Padi Kaushik Reddy. The petitioners’ have sought timely action by the Telangana assembly speaker on disqualification proceedings pending against 10 MLAs, who defected to the Congress.

One of the pleas’, filed in the apex court, has challenged the November 2024 verdict of the Telangana High Court in a matter concerning petitions seeking the disqualification of three BRS MLAs who defected to the ruling Congress party.

The other petition before the top court relates to the remaining seven legislators who defected. The high court had said the speaker must decide the disqualification petitions against the three MLAs within a “reasonable time”.