SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI., AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Padi Kaushik Reddy Etc. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Telangana And Others Etc. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 9932-9933 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 2353-54 of 2025) with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 82 of 2025, Civil Appeal No. 9934 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. of 2025), Diary No.14577 of 2025
Decided On : 31-07-2025
| 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 1160 of 2024 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment and final order dated 9th September 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in a batch of Writ Petitions.
FACTS
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the appeals are as under:
3.1. On 3rd November 2023, on the recommendation of the Election Commission of India, the Hon’ble Governor of the State of Telangana issued the notification for General Election to the State Legislative Assembly.
3.2. Pursuant to the notification, one Danam Nagender filed his nomination as a candidate of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi2[Hereinafter referred to as “BRS”] from the Khairatabad Assembly Constituency on 6th November 2023. Similarly, two others namely Venkata Rao Tellam and Kadiyam Srihari filed their nomination from Bhadrachalam Assembly Constituency and Ghanpur Station Constituency as candidates of BRS on 9th November 2023.
3.3. Thereafter, on 30th November 2023, the elections were held and the results were declared on 3rd December 2023.
3.4. The aforementioned Danam Nagender, Venkata Rao Tellam and Kadiyam Srihari won the election from their respective constituency. The Indian National Congress3[Hereinafter referred to as “INC”] emerged as the single largest party and it along with its ally formed the Government.
3.5. It is the allegation of the appellants that on 15th March 2024, Danam Nagender joined the INC. It is further their allegation that the other two BRS Members of Legislative Assembly4[Hereinafter referred to as “MLA”] namely Kadiyam Srihari and Venkata Rao Tellam also joined the INC on 31st March 2024 and 7th April 2024 respectively.
3.6. Subsequently, the Appellants in the lead matter namely Padi Kaushik Reddy and Kuna Pandu Vivekanand, who are themselves MLAs belonging to BRS, filed separate petitions under Paragraph 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule read with Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India and Rules 6(1) and 6(2) of the Members of Telangana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 19865[Hereinafter referred to as “Disqualification Rules 1986”] before the Telangana State Legislative Assembly on 18th March 2024, 2nd April 2024 and 8th April 2024. The common prayer in all the three petitions was for a declaration from the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly that the MLAs from BRS who joined the INC be declared as disqualified from continuing as members of the Telangana Legislative Assembly.
3.7. The Appellant in the connected matter, namely Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, who is an MLA belonging to Bharatiya Janata Party6[Hereinafter referred to as “BJP”], also filed a petition seeking the disqualification of Danam Nagender on 1st July 2024.
3.8. Thereafter, aggrieved by the inaction/delay on part of the Speaker in decidin
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others
Rajendra Singh Rana and Others v. Swami Prasad Maurya and Others
Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra and Others
Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly and Others
S.A. Sampath Kumar v. Kale Yadaiah and Others
The Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within three months to uphold constitutional objectives and prevent political defections.
The Speaker has the exclusive authority to decide disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, and must act within a reasonable time to uphold constitutional mandates.
Judicial review is permissible in disqualification matters, and the Speaker must decide petitions within a reasonable timeframe to uphold democratic principles.
(1) Political imbroglio in State Legislature of Maharashtra – Supreme Court cannot ordinarily adjudicate petitions for disqualification under Tenth Schedule in first instance. There are no extraordin....
Point of law: Election - Disqualification - No perversity - Speaker passed the impugned disqualification order after taking into consideration all the pleadings, newspaper reports, the photographs an....
Comparative Citation: 2011 (1) KCCR 476
Speaker discharges quasi-judicial function while adjudicating question of disqualification of a Member. Such decision is amenable to judicial review.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.