Supreme Court directs Speaker to decide pending defection petitions within three months

A Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard challenges to a Division Bench judgment of the Telangana High Court that had set aside a Single Judge's direction to place disqualification petitions before the Speaker for a hearing schedule. The appeals arose from writ petitions and special leave petitions seeking adjudication of Tenth Schedule disqualification petitions against ten Members of the Telangana Legislative Assembly who allegedly joined another party after election.

The Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court Division Bench order and reinstated the Single Judge’s direction with firmer timelines. The Bench held that the Speaker, while acting under Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule, was a tribunal amenable to judicial review and that the constitutional design required expeditious disposal of disqualification petitions to give effect to the anti-defection scheme. The Court observed that longstanding precedents confined judicial review of a Speaker’s decision to jurisdictional errors, mala fides, non-compliance with natural justice and perversity, but also recognised the Court’s duty to ensure the Tenth Schedule’s object is not frustrated by inaction. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We are inclined to do so in view of the specific finding of the Constitution Bench ... that the Speaker, while acting as an adjudicating authority in Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, acts as a Tribunal amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. ... the Speaker/Chairman ... does not enjoy the constitutional immunity as available either under Article 122 or 212 of the Constitution.” The judgment also reiterated the constitutional caution that “judicial review should not cover any stage prior to the making of a decision by the Speakers/Chairmen” and that “no quia timet actions are permissible,” while recognising exceptions where interlocutory relief is necessary to prevent grave and irreversible consequences.

Background The controversy arose after the Election Commission issued notification for the 2023 Telangana Assembly polls. Three BRS candidates — Danam Nagender, Venkata Rao Tellam and Kadiyam Srihari — won and were later alleged to have joined the Indian National Congress between March and April 2024. BRS MLAs Padi Kaushik Reddy and Kuna Pandu Vivekanand (and a connected petitioner, Alleti Maheshwar Reddy of BJP) filed disqualification petitions under Paragraph 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule and relevant state rules, praying that the Speaker declare the defecting MLAs disqualified. When the Speaker did not issue notices or progress the petitions for several months, the petitioners moved the Telangana High Court by writs; the Single Judge (9 September 2024) directed the Secretary of the Assembly to place the petitions before the Speaker to fix a hearing schedule within four weeks. The Assembly Secretary appealed, and a Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s order on 22 November 2024. Petitioners obtained special leave and filed a writ in this Court; the matter was heard after interlocutory procedural steps, notices and arguments on the limits of judicial intervention.

The Supreme Court reviewed binding precedents including Constitution Bench rulings in Kihoto Hollohan and Subhash Desai and the Rajendra Singh Rana decision, emphasising the purpose of the Tenth Schedule—curbing defections—and parliamentary debates that entrusted prompt adjudication to the Speaker. Noting repeated instances of prolonged inaction, the Court found the Division Bench erred in disturbing the Single Judge’s direction and held that in the present facts inaction had frustrated the Tenth Schedule’s object. The Court directed the Speaker to conclude the disqualification proceedings against the ten MLAs “as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment,” and warned the Speaker to draw adverse inferences if any MLA attempted to protract proceedings. The appeals were allowed and the Division Bench order set aside; no costs were awarded.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 912 Case Title: Padi Kaushik Reddy etc. v. The State of Telangana and Others etc. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri C. Aryama Sundaram, Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu, Shri Gandra Mohan Rao (learned Senior Counsel) For the Respondent(s): Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Shri Gaurav Agrawal, Shri S. Niranjan Reddy (learned Senior Counsel)