HYDERABAD: Legal experts in the state on Monday took strong exception to the Supreme Court’s pointed remarks against Assembly Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar, while issuing a contempt notice to him for not complying with its earlier direction to decide disqualification pleas against 10 BRS MLAs, who had allegedly defected to the ruling Congress, within three months.
During a hearing on Monday, a bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai termed the non-compliance of its earlier directions as the “grossest kind of contempt” and asked the Speaker to “decide where you want to spend your New Year’s Eve”, a veiled reference to possible jail time if the pleas are not resolved by next week.
The Supreme Court’s displeasure arises from its July 31, 2025, directive requiring the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions within three months — by October 30, 2025.
No constitutional immunity
Although notices were issued in January 2025 — only after the court’s intervention — the matters have still not been concluded. This delay has led the apex court to reiterate that Speakers, when acting as quasi-judicial authorities under the Tenth Schedule’s anti-defection framework, do not enjoy constitutional immunity from timely judicial scrutiny.
Prominent figures in the legal fraternity took umbrage at the court’s tone, arguing it undermines the dignity of a constitutional office while emphasising the need for compliance.
“This means the Speaker has to celebrate his New Year in jail? It’s absolutely wrong to address a constitutional office (Speaker) in this manner,” noted K Ramakrishna Reddy, the first advocate general of Telangana.
He cited the Manilal Singh vs H Borobabu Singh case, in which the Supreme Court summoned a Speaker but refrained from imposing punishment, underscoring restraint in such matters.
Additional time
He further contended that with disqualification proceedings already underway, the Supreme Court should have given the Speaker additional time before escalating. “As the disqualification procedure has been initiated, the Supreme Court should have given some more time to the Speaker before warning that it would initiate contempt proceedings,” he said.
Nonetheless, he stressed adherence to judicial authority: “There is no question of defying the Supreme Court’s orders.”
TPCC legal cell chairman Ponnam Ashok Goud, meanwhile, expressed concern over the implications of the remarks, clarifying that oral observations from the bench carry no binding.
“The oral remarks of the judges may not be binding orders. The oral remarks wouldn’t have legal effect, unless written in the court’s order,” Goud stated, highlighting a key procedural nuance.
A former advocate general of the Telugu states, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed to prior judicial deference, noting that the Telangana High Court had initially upheld arguments against courts encroaching on legislative domains. However, the Supreme Court’s intervention has shifted the dynamics, he noted.
“The court has already made some shocking remarks. It’s no longer hypothetical whether the court can say such a thing or not,” the former AG remarked, alluding to the blurred lines between judicial review and legislative autonomy.