Hyderabad, November 22, 2024: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, overturned a previous order by a single judge directing the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to schedule hearings for disqualification petitions within four weeks. The bench emphasized that while disqualification petitions must be resolved within a “reasonable time,” a rigid timeline, as prescribed by the single judge, was unnecessary.

The court clarified that the definition of “reasonable time” must account for the specifics of each case, the pendency period, and the constitutional principles outlined in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. It reiterated that the Speaker, as the competent authority under the Tenth Schedule, should address the petitions expeditiously, but the timeline should remain flexible depending on the circumstances.

Background

The judgment, spanning 78 pages, was delivered in response to writ appeals filed by the Secretary of the Telangana Legislative Assembly. These appeals challenged the single judge’s September 9, 2024, directive that ordered the Speaker to schedule hearings for disqualification petitions within four weeks and to communicate the schedule to the Court Registrar.

The disqualification petitions involved MLAs Venkata Rao Tellam (Bhadrachalam), Kadiyam Srihari (Station Ghanpur), and Danam Nagender (Khairatabad), who were elected on BRS tickets but later defected to the Indian National Congress (INC). The petitions were filed by BRS MLAs Kuna Pandu Vivekananda (Qutbullapur) and Padi Kaushik Reddy (Huzurabad), alongside BJP MLA Alleti Maheshwar Reddy.

Arguments Presented

Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy, representing the Speaker’s office, argued that the single judge’s directive was premature, as the writ petition was filed just ten days after the issue arose. He asserted that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution could only occur after the Speaker had made a decision. Imposing a time-bound schedule infringed upon the Speaker’s authority, he claimed, and the directive to the Secretary to set a hearing schedule amounted to overstepping constitutional boundaries.

In contrast, counsels for Kuna Pandu Vivekananda and Padi Kaushik Reddy supported the single judge’s order, arguing that the Speaker’s delay violated the constitutional mandate. They maintained that judicial intervention was necessary to ensure the Speaker acted efficiently and in a timely manner.

Court’s Ruling

After considering arguments from all parties, the bench set aside the single judge’s order. The court highlighted that while the Speaker must decide on disqualification petitions promptly, the timeline should vary based on the specifics of each case. The judgment underscores the balance between judicial oversight and the Speaker’s constitutional authority, ensuring that due process is followed without undue interference.