In a significant ruling reinforcing the principle of accountability and democratic integrity, the Supreme Court (SC) of India directed the Speaker of Telangana Legislative Assembly on July 31, 2025, to decide, within three months, the disqualification petitions against 10 Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) who defected to the ruling Congress Party. The Court categorically held that the speaker, while acting as an adjudicating authority under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, functions as a tribunal amenable to judicial review and does not enjoy constitutional immunity. The decision has reignited the debate on the efficacy of the anti-defection law and the constitutional role of the speaker in upholding democratic stability.
Background of the Case
The case arose after the Telangana Assembly elections were held on November 30, 2023, with the results being declared on December 3, 2023. Ten MLAs, initially elected as candidates of the BRS, defected to the ruling Congress Party in batches between March and April 2024. In response, two BRS MLAs filed disqualification petitions under Paragraph 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule between March 18, 2024, and April 8, 2024. The provision stipulates that a member shall be disqualified if he/she voluntarily gives up membership of their political party. However, Paragraph 4 of the same Schedule exempts defecting MLAs if not less than two-thirds of the legislative party’s strength merge with another party.
At that time, the BRS had 39 MLAs in the 119-member Assembly. Since the number of defectors was less than two-thirds, they were not entitled to the protection under Paragraph 4. Consequently, the speaker was empowered under Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to decide the disqualification petitions in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Assembly Rules. Since the schedule’s enactment (in 1985), there have been multiple instances where speakers (Mostly belonging to ruling parties) delayed decisions on such petitions till the end of the Assembly’s term. Despite this background, no timely action was taken. Notices were issued only after the matter reached the SC.
Proceedings before the High Court and the Supreme Court
The appellants first approached the Telangana High Court by filing writ petitions between April and July 2024, challenging the inaction of the Speaker in deciding disqualification petitions against three MLAs. On September 9, 2024, a Single Judge directed the Secretary of the Assembly to place the petitions before the Speaker and fix a hearing schedule within four weeks. The order further stated that if no progress occurred within that period, the court would reopen the matter suo moto and appropriate orders would be passed.
However, the Secretary of the Assembly challenged this before a Division Bench, which on November 22, 2024, set aside the Single Judge’s direction. This prompted the petitioners, BRS leaders, K.T. Rama Rao, Padi Kaushik Reddy, and K.O. Vivekanand, to appeal the decision of the Division Bench before the SC. Additionally, writ petitions were filed directly in the SC concerning the remaining seven MLAs, seeking a direction to the speaker to decide the disqualification petitions expeditiously and within a specified time frame with the petitioners seeking an outer limit of four weeks.
Observations of the Supreme Court
A bench comprising of Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed the appeals, setting aside the Telangana High Court Division Bench’s order dated November 22, 2024. The Court reiterated that political defections have been a matter of national discourse and if not curbed, have the potential to disrupt democracy. It emphasised that the constitutional scheme has entrusted the speaker with the responsibility of deciding disqualification proceedings to ensure expeditious adjudication without overburdening the judiciary.
The Court referred to parliamentary speeches by leaders Rajesh Pilot and Devendra Nath Munshi, underlining that entrusting disqualification proceedings to the speaker was intended to prevent delays that might occur in courts or before the Election Commission. Chief Justice Gavai noted that the speaker had failed to act in an expeditious manner. The Court observed that non-issuance of any notice for over seven months, followed by action only after the proceedings were filed before the SC or after the SC had heard the matter for the first time, could not be considered timely or appropriate.
Legal Reasoning and Constitutional Interpretation
The Court relied on several key precedents, including Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu (1992), Rajendra Singh Rana vs Swami Prasad Maurya (2007), and Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020).
Referring to Kihoto Hollohan, the bench reiterated that the speaker acts as a tribunal under Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule and is, therefore, bound to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period. The respondents had argued that judicial review should not be invoked before the speaker made a decision, but the bench clarified that judicial review could be exercised in aid of the speaker to ensure prompt adjudication.
The Court also referred to Rajendra Singh Rana, in which it had intervened when the speaker had left disqualification undecided. The precedent established that inaction by the speaker could not be protected under the Tenth Schedule.
Similarly, in Keisham Meghachandra Singh, the Court directed a three-month timeline for deciding disqualification petitions, a standard that the present Bench applied to the Telangana case.
The Bench noted that Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution bar courts from discussing proceedings in Parliament and state legislatures, respectively. It did not extend immunity to the speaker while acting as an adjudicatory authority under the Tenth Schedule. Hence, the speaker, acting as a tribunal, remains subject to judicial scrutiny by the high courts and the Supreme Court.
Key Directions and Time-Bound Mandate
Disposing of the matter, the SC directed that the disqualification proceedings against the 10 MLAs be decided as expeditiously as possible and within three months. The Court made it clear that no MLA should be permitted to prolong or protract the proceedings. If any attempt is made to delay them, the speaker shall draw adverse inferences against such MLAs.
The Court further instructed the Speaker not to allow the proceedings to be prolonged unnecessarily, noting that such delays had previously resulted in disqualification matters dying a ‘natural death’ as assemblies completed their terms. The judgement warned that repeated instances of prolonged inaction by speakers have made the Tenth Schedule ‘a mockery’, undermining the purpose of the anti-defection law.
Additionally, the bench expressed concern that the speaker had acted only after the S.C. took cognisance of the issue, questioning whether such conduct aligned with the dignity expected of the high constitutional office.
Concerns over Delays and Need for Parliamentary Review
The judgment went beyond merely directing a timeline. It highlighted a broader office of institutional concern, urging Parliament to reconsider whether the mechanism of entrusting speakers and chairmen with the task of deciding disqualification petitions effectively combats political defections. The Court remarked that despite three decades of experience with the Tenth Schedule, frequent delays in disqualification decisions have eroded public trust.
Chief Justice Gavai quoted late parliamentarian Rajesh Pilot’s statement that the speaker’s role as a tribunal was introduced to avoid ‘dilly-dallying in the courts of law or the Election Commission’. However, he observed that the Telangana Speaker had not met this standard, issuing notices only after a delay of seven months. The judgment questioned whether the faith that Parliament had reposed in the office of the speaker to act promptly had been justified in practice.
The Court noted that several petitions have been filed across the country complaining about the inaction of speakers, necessitating a re-examination of whether the existing mechanism sufficiently safeguards democratic principles.
The Court’s Reflections on Political Defections
The bench underscored that political defections pose a serious threat to democratic stability. Chief Justice Gavai, in delivering judgment, observed that if not curbed, defections have the potential to disrupt democracy itself. The Court stressed that disqualification proceedings must be decided promptly to prevent manipulation of legislative majorities.
It further reiterated that while the Tenth Schedule was designed to ensure stability and discourage opportunistic shifts in allegiance, its objectives have often been undermined by delays and partisan considerations in the offices of the Speakers. The Court reminded that the anti-defection law was enacted in 1985 to maintain political stability and uphold the sanctity of electoral mandates.
The judgment also recalled previous judicial expressions of concerns about speakers’ reluctance to act against defectors, noting that the continued practice of delaying disqualification decisions frustrates the spirit of the Constitution.
Context of the Telangana Case
The SC also took note of remarks made by Telangana Chief Minister, A. Revanth Reddy, on the floor of the Assembly regarding pending disqualification petitions. Earlier, on April 3, 2025, the Bench had reserved judgement and expressed disapproval of chief minister’s comments suggesting that there would be no bye-elections even if opposition MLAs desired them. The Court questioned the speaker’s silence during such remarks, observing that constitutional offices must respect the principles of mutual restraint among the two wings of democracy.
The Bench had remarked that respect for the judiciary by the other two wings of government was expected in the same measure as the judiciary’s respect for them.
Reflection on Institutional Integrity
By declaring that the speaker does not enjoy constitutional immunity under Articles 122 or 212 while acting as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule, the Court reaffirmed the supremacy of judicial review as an essential feature of the Constitution. The judgment underscored that the speaker’s decisions, or inaction, must be consistent with the constitutional objective of preserving the purity of the democratic process.
It further drew attention to the need for institutional introspection. The Court suggested that Parliament might consider revisiting the current mechanism, as repeated delays in disqualification cases have weakened the anti-defection framework and endangered democratic stability.
Way forward
In reaffirming that the speaker acts as a tribunal without constitutional immunity, the SC has reinforced the foundational idea that no constitutional office is beyond the reach of the law when it comes to protecting the integrity of Indian democracy.
Conclusion
The SC’s decision in Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana and Others marks a crucial step in reaffirming constitutional accountability in the anti-defection regime. By setting aside the Telangana High Court Division Bench’s order and directing the speaker to conclude the disqualification proceedings within three months, the Court has sought to revive faith in the rule of law and the constitutional principle of impartial adjudication.
The judgment serves a strong reminder that the speaker, though a legislative authority, assumes a quasi-judicial role under the Tenth Schedule and is, therefore, not insulated from judicial scrutiny. The decision also issues a moral call to Parliament to revisit and strengthen the institutional safeguards that prevent political defections from undermining democratic governance.
© Spectrum Books Pvt Ltd.
