Supreme Court calls out Telangana Speaker's 'gross contempt' for not deciding BRS MLAs disqualification petitions

A CJI led bench of the Supreme Court today called out the Telangana Speaker over not deciding the disqualification petitions pending against 10 BRS MLAs who allegedly defected to the ruling Congress party in March 2024.

CJI Gavai noted that the Speaker was in gross contempt of the court's order from July 31, 2025 when it had directed the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker to decide within three months the disqualification petitions

"Either it has to be decided by next week or face contempt. We have already held speaker doesn't enjoy constitutional immunity...it is upto him to decide where he wants to spend his New Year", the CJI observed in court today.

In July, a bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih noted that although the petitions were filed in March and April 2024, the Speaker issued notices only on January 16, 202, just a day after the matter was moved before the Court. The Court criticised this delay and questioned whether the mechanism of entrusting disqualification decisions to the Speaker continues to serve its intended purpose.

“If the very foundation of our democracy and the principles that sustain it are to be safeguarded, it must be examined whether the present mechanism is sufficient,” the Court had said, referring to repeated delays in adjudicating defection matters under the Tenth Schedule. The appellants, BRS MLAs Padi Kaushik Reddy and Kuna Pandu Vivekanand, had urged the Court to decide the disqualification petitions directly, citing the Constitution Bench ruling in Rajendra Singh Rana (2007).

The Court, however, declined, holding that consistent precedent from Kihoto Hollohan (1992) to Subhash Desai (2024) affirms that the Speaker must decide such petitions at the first instance.

At the same time, the Court underscored that the Speaker acts as a tribunal under Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule and is subject to judicial review under Articles 136, 226, and 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the bench set aside a Telangana High Court division bench ruling dated November 22, 2024, which had interfered with a single judge’s direction for expeditious hearing.

The Court had also directed the Speaker not to permit any MLA to delay the proceedings and warned that an adverse inference would be drawn against any such attempt. The respondents argued that courts could not impose timelines on the Speaker, referring to the pending five-judge reference in S.A. Sampath Kumar (2021). The Court disagreed, citing the three-judge bench decision in Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020), which had similarly directed the Speaker of the Manipur Assembly to decide disqualification petitions within a fixed timeframe.

It further noted that Rajendra Singh Rana had not been cited when Sampath Kumar was referred, and that even Justice Nariman, who authored Keisham Meghachandra Singh, was part of the referring bench. Recalling the intent behind Tenth Schedule, inserted by the Constitution (52nd Amendment) Act, 1985, the Court said Parliament had entrusted the Speaker with this responsibility to prevent long drawn litigation and ensure speedy resolution.

Referring to debates in Parliament and remarks by then Law Minister A.K. Sen, the Court noted that the trust reposed in the Speaker was meant to ensure swift and impartial decisions on defections. “With over 30 years of experience with the Tenth Schedule, the question we must now ask is whether that trust has been honoured,” the Court remarked.

Case Title: Padi Kaushik Reddy & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Hearing Date: November 17, 2025

Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Chandran and Justice Anjaria