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

2025 Supreme(SC) 1134

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

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.

The Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within three months to uphold constitutional objectives and prevent political defections.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Tenth Schedule, Paragraph 2(1) and Article 191(2) - Disqualification of Members of Legislative Assembly - The Court directed the Speaker to conclude disqualification proceedings against specific MLAs within three months to ensure prompt resolution of pending cases. (Paragraphs 100, 102)

(B) Judicial Review - The Speaker's decisions under the Tenth Schedule are subject to judicial review but not prior to a decision made. Quia timet actions are generally impermissible, except in cases of potential irreversible consequences. (Paragraphs 81, 84)

(C) Legislative Procedures - The Court highlighted the urgency of timely proceedings in disqualification matters, affirming the necessity for accountability in legislative roles, given the constitutional imperative to prevent political defection. (Paragraphs 96, 100)

Facts of the case:
Appellants, MLAs, filed petitions for disqualification against other MLAs who defected to another party. Due to inaction from the Speaker, they sought relief from the High Court, which the Division Bench later reversed.

Findings of Court:
The High Court's interference with the Single Judge’s order was not warranted. The current case illustrates the delay in handling disqualification proceedings, undermining the constitutional purpose.

Issues: The main issues addressed concern the timelines for disqualification decisions, the Speaker's role, and the appropriateness of judicial intervention in legislative processes.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court established that while judicial review of the Speaker's decisions is permissible, it does not extend to premature intervention before the Speaker's decision. Delays in legislative processes undermine democratic accountability.

Result: Appeals allowed; the Division Bench decision quashed, directing the Speaker to complete pending disqualifications within three months.

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

        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 Back to top