SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1134

B. R. GAVAI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Padi Kaushik Reddy Etc. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana And Others Etc. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C Aryama Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gandra Mohan Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AOR Ms. J Akshitha, Adv. Mr. J Venkat Sai, Adv. Mr. Eugene S Philomene, Adv. Mr. Zafar Inayat Ganai, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jayapala Reddy, Adv. Mr. Shubhankar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Basa Mithun Shashank, Adv. Mr. Anthony Reddy Katakam, Adv. Mr. R.V. Pavan Maitreya, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. Rajnikant Reddy, A.A.G. Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Lavkesh Bhambhani, Adv. Mr. Aniket Singh, Adv. Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, AOR Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv. Ms. Laxmi, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, Sr. Adv. Ms. Aarati Sah, Adv. Ms. Diya Purohit, Adv. Ms. Neha Rai, AOR Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Ms. Akhila Palem Rami Reddy, Adv. Mr. Meeran Maqbool, Adv. Mr. Vivek Rajan D.b, Adv. Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AOR Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv. Mr. S.uday Bhanu, Adv. Mr. Vineet George, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Adv. Mr. Ankit Agarwal, AOR Mr. Koustubh Desai, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Yashaswi Sk Chocksey, Adv. Mr. Madhup Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR Ms. Megha Shaw, Adv. Mr. Abhisek Das, Adv. Mr. Raghav Bherwani, Adv.

Table of Content
1. facts of election and disqualification petitions (Para 2 , 3)
2. parties’ contentions on delay and speaker's authority (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. court's analysis on parliamentary proceedings and past judgments (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94)
4. judgment on judicial review and speaker's authority (Para 100)
5. final orders by the court directing the speaker (Para 101 , 102 , 103 , 104)

JUDGMENT :

(B.R. GAVAI, CJI.)

1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 2353-2354 of 2025 and SLP (C) Diary No. 14577 of 2025.

2. The appeals in the present set of matters challenge the judgment and final order dated 22nd November 2024 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in Writ Appeal Nos. 1157, 1158 and 116

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
        whatsapp-icon Back to top