Telangana HC directs Speaker to decide on disqualification of MLAs

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court was not inclined to give relief to the BRS, which sought a direction to the Assembly Speaker to disqualify party MLAs Danam Nagender, Kadiam Srihari and Tellam Venkat Rao for defecting to the Congress. Nagender had even contested for the Secunderbad Lok Sabha seat on a Congress ticket.

The court was dealing with batch of writ petitions filed by BRS legislators K.P. Vivekanand and Padi Kaushik Reddy besides BJP floor leader A. Maheshwar Reddy who pressed for Nagender’s disqualification.

Justice Bollam Vijaysen Reddy, however, directed the Legislature secretary to “place the disqualification petitions before the Speaker for fixing a schedule of hearing (filing of pleadings, documents, personal hearing etc.,) within a period of four weeks from Monday.” The schedule did not have a mention about the final decision by the Speaker.

“Having due regard to the Constitutional status and dignity of the Office of the Speaker, the court is not issuing directions to the Speaker,” Justice Vijaysen Reddy said, adding that a situation might arise wherein the party would not have any remedy in the event of the Speaker declining to take any action on the petitions. Hence, the judge opined, it was appropriate to give directives to the legislature secretary.

The court also directed the secretary to communicate the schedule to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court. The court made it clear that “if nothing is heard within four weeks regarding the schedule, then the matter will be reopened suo motu and appropriate orders will be passed.”

Justice Reddy said every Constitutional authority was bound by the principles of democracy, constitutional ethics and philosophy.

Having heard lengthy arguments from all sides, the High Court had reserved the orders on August 10. The court pointed out in the order that there was no response from the Speaker’s office to submit the status of the disqualification petitions pending before it, either during the court hearing the petitions, or after reserving the orders. Against this backdrop, the court opined that the petitioners had made out special circumstances and were entitled for relief.

The HC did not agree with the arguments of the Advocate General and other senior counsels appearing for the Speaker and the defector MLAs, who argued that the writ jurisdiction could not issue a mandamus to the Speaker. They also argued that then Speaker did not act on disqualification petitions moved by the Congress against the defection of their MLAs into the BRS previously.

Justice Vijaysen Reddy said that both these contentions did not hold force in the light of authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in ‘Keisham Meghachandra Singh v Speaker of the Manipur Legislative Assembly’, in which the apex directed the Speaker of the Manipur Assembly to decide on the disqualification petition within a period of four weeks from the date on which the judgment was intimated to him.

Refuting the arguments of Advocate General and other counsels for the respondents, who contended that the indecision/inaction by the Speaker was not subject to judicial review, and that the court could not give directions to the Speaker to decide disqualification within a timeframe, Justice Reddy pointed out that then one has to ask for how long the inaction or indecision of the Speaker may be tolerated by the courts.

Further, the court observed that it could not be said that the Speaker could wait for five years, until the completion of the term of the House, and still the court should not lay its hands on the matter. Such an approach would be against the Constitutional mandate and antithetical to democratic principles.