The Supreme Court on Friday sharply criticized the Telangana Assembly Speaker for delaying decisions on disqualification petitions against rebel Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) legislators, giving him two weeks to comply. The move underscores the top court’s insistence on time-bound enforcement of constitutional provisions regarding defections.
Background of the Case
The dispute arises from disqualification pleas filed against 10 rebel BRS MLAs who defected to the Congress following the 2023 assembly elections. The petitions seek action under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which governs disqualification of legislators on grounds of defection, and the corresponding Members of Telangana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1986.
The Supreme Court had earlier, on July 31, 2025, directed the Telangana Speaker to decide on the disqualification petitions within three months. However, only seven petitions have been resolved, leaving three—against M. Sanjay Kumar, Kadiyam Srihari, and Danam Nagendar—pending.
Supreme Court Proceedings
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and AG Masih took serious exception to the delay. The court ordered the Speaker to complete the remaining disqualification proceedings within two weeks and posted the matter for review after that period. The bench stated, “We are giving you two weeks. Finish it by then. After two weeks, we will fix the matter to see the progress made in the matter.”
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar, requested additional time, citing intervening circumstances:
- The Speaker underwent eye surgery from January 8 to 10.
- A new secretary of the Assembly assumed office on December 26.
- Seven disqualification petitions had already been resolved in December 2025 and January 2026.
Singhvi argued that further time was required to allow for responses and counter-submissions in the remaining cases. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Assembly secretary, echoed these concerns.
However, the court insisted on adherence to the two-week timeline, ordering that an affidavit be placed on recorddetailing steps taken to comply with the directive.
Details of the Pending Petitions
According to a chart submitted by the Speaker’s counsel:
- Petitions against M. Sanjay Kumar have been reserved for judgment.
- Petitions against Kadiyam Srihari and Danam Nagendar are scheduled for enquiry.
The resolved petitions included seven MLAs: Kale Yadaiah, Pocharam Srinivas Reddy, Tellam Venkat Rao, Bandla Krishna Mohan Reddy, T. Prakash Goud, Gudem Mahipal Reddy, and Arekapudi Gandhi.
BRS Reaction
BRS working president and Telangana MLA K.T. Rama Rao (KTR) strongly criticized the Congress-led state government and the Speaker’s office for allegedly shielding defectors. Taking to X, KTR said the delay “makes a mockery of the Constitution” and accused the ruling party of trampling democratic and constitutional values.
He further alleged that the Speaker’s office claimed “no evidence of defection” despite witnesses and documentation proving the shift in loyalty. KTR described the conduct of the Congress as “moral bankruptcy”, asserting that the party has shown no respect for the Constitution or the Supreme Court.
Historical Context
The July 2025 Supreme Court judgment arose from an appeal by BRS MLAs Padi Kaushik Reddy and Kuna Pandu Vivekanand, challenging a November 2024 Telangana High Court order. The High Court had set aside a previous direction instructing the Speaker to decide on the disqualification pleas of three BRS MLAs who defected in March 2024.
The Supreme Court’s intervention was aimed at ensuring that defection cases are adjudicated within constitutionally mandated timelines, thereby upholding the integrity of the legislative process.
Current Status
As of now, the Congress and Speaker’s office have not responded publicly to the Supreme Court’s directive. The court has made it clear that compliance within two weeks is mandatory, with follow-up proceedings to assess progress. Failure to adhere to the timeline could invite further judicial action.
The case highlights ongoing tensions in Telangana politics, particularly regarding MLA defections, party loyalty, and the enforcement of constitutional provisions. It also underscores the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring timely action in matters affecting the stability and credibility of legislative assemblies.
Leave a Reply