Speaker not immune from Judicial Review: Supreme Court gives Telangana Speaker 3 Months in BRS defection case

The Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, allowed the appeal filed by BRS leader Padi Kaushik Reddy and pulled up the Speaker for inaction, making it clear that attempts to delay the process would invite adverse inferences.

“Political defections pose a serious threat to democracy and have long dominated national discourse,” CJI Gavai remarked while delivering the judgment. He noted that the Court had referred to key parliamentary debates, including speeches by Rajesh Pilot and Devendra Nath Munshi, highlighting the dangers of defections to the integrity of the democratic process.

CJI Gavai clarified that the intent behind assigning the responsibility of deciding disqualification petitions to the Speaker was to avoid judicial delays and ensure swift resolution within the legislature itself.

Rejecting arguments that the case should not be decided due to a pending larger bench reference, the Court cited the Kihoto Hollohan judgment, reaffirming the narrow scope of judicial review under Articles 136, 226, and 227 in matters of legislative disqualification.

The Court strongly criticised the Division Bench for interfering with the Single Judge’s decision, which had not even imposed a time-bound directive. “The Speaker, when acting as an adjudicatory authority under the Tenth Schedule, functions as a tribunal,” CJI Gavai said.

“In that capacity, he is subject to writ jurisdiction and does not enjoy constitutional immunity," the Court held.

The Court directed that the disqualification petitions be disposed of within three months. “No MLA shall be permitted to delay the process. If any attempt is made to protract the proceedings, the Speaker shall be free to draw adverse inferences,” the Court stated.

Conclusively, the Court ordered, "The impugned judgment and final order dated 22nd November 2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is quashed and set aside. We direct the Speaker to conclude the disqualification proceedings pending against the 10 MLAs pertaining to the present appeals/petition as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment."

Furthermore, the Bench directed, "The Speaker would not permit any of the MLAs who are sought to be disqualified to protract the proceedings. In the event, any of such MLAs attempt to protract the proceedings, the Speaker would draw an adverse inference against such of the MLAs."