HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has raised critical questions regarding the prolonged delay in making a decision on disqualification complaints against several MLAs who defected to the Congress.
During a hearing on Tuesday, Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy faced inquiries from the court on whether a specific deadline has been set up for the Speaker to address these complaints.
When the AG responded that the court lacks the jurisdiction to issue directions to the Speaker, Justice B Vijaysen Reddy emphasised the need for timely decisions in such matters. He observed that district courts are frequently given deadlines to complete proceedings and constitutional tribunals should have similar authority to compel the Speaker, who serves as the chairman of the tribunal, to adhere to deadlines.
Justice Reddy also expressed concern that political pressure might be contributing to the delays in taking a decision, which he deemed unacceptable from an individual who occupies a constitutional position.
The court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Kaisham Meghchandra Singh vs Speaker of Manipur case, where the Speaker was ordered to make a decision within a specified timeframe. However, senior advocate Jandhyala Ravi Shankar contested this point, asserting that the Supreme Court did not establish a fixed deadline for the Speaker in disqualification petitions. On the other hand, senior lawyer Gandra Mohan Rao argued that the Speaker should indeed be required to make a decision within a stipulated period.
The disqualification petitions were filed by BRS MLAs KP Vivekanand, Padi Kaushik Reddy and BJP’s LP Maheshwar Reddy against MLAs Kadiyam Srihari, Tellam Venkata Rao and Danam Nagender.
Justice Reddy reiterated the Supreme Court’s instruction in a Manipur MLAs case, which mandated a decision within three months. He noted that more than three months had elapsed since these petitions were filed and suggested that the Speaker should be given clear instructions to expedite the decision-making process.
Justice Reddy further highlighted that failing to act promptly undermines the constitutional responsibility of the Speaker and sets a negative precedent. He stated, “Everyone has respect for the Speaker. But it must be assumed that he is not taking the decision due to political pressures. It is not right to sit in a constitutional position and yield to political pressure. If this continues, even five years will pass without a decision.”
Following the arguments, the judge adjourned the hearing to Wednesday, granting senior advocates Mayur Reddy and Sriraghuram additional time to prepare their arguments.