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.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, C.J.

Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana appears for Mr. K.Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. R.V.Pavan Maitreya, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1157 of 2024.

Mr. G.Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. S. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.1158 and 1160 of 2024.

Mr. Ravishankar Jandhyala, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in W.A.No.1157 of 2024.

Mr. P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. P.Sri Ram, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in W.A.No.1160 of 2024.

Mr. B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. L. Preetham Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6 in W.A.No.1158 of 2024.

Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. I.V.Siddhivardhana, learned Special Government Pleader, appears through video conferencing for the respondent No.2 in W.A.No.1157 of 2024.

2. By common order dated 09.09.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.9472, 11098 and 18553 of 2024, the learned Single Judge dealt with the grievance of the writ petitioners about the inaction on the part of the Speaker while dealing with the petitioners seeking disqualification made by them under paragraph 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India and disposed of the writ petitions. These writ appeals emanate from the aforesaid common order dated 09.09.2024 and therefore were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the facility of reference, facts from W.A.No.1157 of 2024 are being referred to.

(i) FACTS:

3. The respondent No.5 contested the election from Huzurabad Assembly Constituency for election to the Legislative Assembly of State of Telangana. The respondent No.5 was set up as a candidate from Bharat Rashtra Samithi (hereinafter referred to as ‘BRS’) and filed his nomination on 06.11.2023 as a candidate of BRS from 60-Khairatabad Assembly Constituency. He was elected on 03.12.2023 as a Member of the Telangana State Legislative Assembly.

4. The respondent No.5, thereafter on 15.03.2024 voluntarily gave up the membership of BRS and joined Indian National Congress (hereinafter referred to as ‘INC’). The respondent No.1 along with other Members of the Legislative Assembly, met the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly and submitted a petition on 01.07.2024 seeking disqualification of respondent No.5 under Paragraph 2 (1) of the Tenth Schedule read with Article 191 (2) of the Constitution of India and under Rule 6 of Members of Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on the ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). However, the aforesaid disqualification petition failed to evoke any response from the Speaker of the House. Thereupon, a writ petition was filed on 09.07.2024 assailing inaction on the part of the Speaker, Telangana Legislative Assembly in not deciding the petition for disqualification and a writ of mandamus was sought to decide the disqualification petition filed by the respondent No.1, within a period of three months.

5. Learned Single Judge by an order dated 09.09.2024^, while placing reliance on a decision rendered by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly , (2021) 16 SCC 503 directed the Secretary of Telangana Legislative As