Telangana HC Stays MLC Appointments Under Governor Quota

The order will be in force till February 8, when the High Court would probably finalise the two writ petitions filed by BRS leaders Dr Dasoju Sravan Kumar and Kurra Satyanarayana, whose names were recommended by the erstwhile BRS government under the Governor quota but were turned down.

The Governor had then rejected the BRS government’s proposal saying the persons recommended were "not eminent persons and have political affiliation” and therefore she had come to a conclusion that they are “not entitled to be nominated for MLC posts."

The swearing-in ceremony of Prof. Kodandraram and Amer Ali Khan was slated to be held on Wednesday, but it will be kept in abeyance in view of the High Court order.

Dr Sravan and Satyanarayana filed interim applications in the main writ petitions seeking a stay on the notification as well as the GO Ms No. 12 dated January 27, 2024 through which Prof. Kodandram and Amer Ali Khan were appointed MLCs, and another interim application seeking their impleadment the writ petitions.

The Chief Justice bench found fault with the notification and questioned how the decision could be taken when the issue was pending before the High Court. “It should not be done like this. We don't approve such an action,” the court observed.

Aditya Sondhi, senior advocate at the Supreme Court, representing Dr Sravan, told the court that the Governor's office had issued a press communiqué on January 17, mentioning that no further action would be taken on the appointment of MLCs under the Governor`s quota till the final decision out in the petitions pending before the High Court.

He reminded that the Advocate General had orally submitted to the High Court that the government would be bound by the gentlemen's agreement but had overreached it.

Senior counsel Mayur Reddy, representing Satyanarayana, said that the government had not acted with fairness and violated its words submitted to the court.

Refuting the contentions, Advocate General Sudharshan Reddy argued that he had given the gentleman agreement on January 5 and it was applicable only to the previous hearing held on January 24. He submitted that the appointments were exercised under the provisions of Representation of People’s Act. Hence, the appointments cannot be set aside or stayed.

Reacting to it, the Bench observed that the arguments of AG is like holding technical points. Further, the court did not agree with his contentions and issued status quo orders.