Supreme Court slams Telangana CM for "making mockery" of anti-defection law

The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticized Congress leader and Telangana Chief Minister (CM) Revanth Reddy for his alleged statement in the State legislature that there would be no bye-elections in the State even if the members of the opposition Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) switched sides to the ruling Congress..The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said,"If this is said on the floor of the house, your Hon'ble CM is making mockery of the 10th Schedule (anti-defection law)." .The Court was hearing a case that has its origin in petitions to disqualify Telangana Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) Venkata Rao Tellam, Kadiyam Srihari and Danam Nagender, who defected to the Congress after being elected on a BRS ticket. In November 2024, a Division Bench of the Telangana High Court directed the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to decide on these disqualification petitions within a "reasonable time." This was challenged before the Supreme Court by two BRS MLAs - Kuna Pandu Vivekananda and Padi Kaushik Reddy - and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Alleti Maheshwar Reddy. The petitioners have protested the Speaker's failure to decide on the matter in a time-bound manner. .Appearing for the petitioner-side, Senior Advocate C Aryaman Sundaram, today apprised the Supreme Court about CM Reddy's statement."The Chief Minister on 26th March in the Assembly told the members that 'I assure you through the Speaker that there will be no by-elections whether you switch sides' ... it is an Assembly proceeding," Sundaram said.Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi appeared for the official respondents and countered that the Assembly proceedings were not in question in the present case. He clarified that he was not representing the CM in this case..Justice Gavai, however, suggested that the senior lawyer warn the CM against making such controversial statements in the legislature."Mr. Rohatgi, you have appeared for the Hon'ble Chief Minister once in that case. You better warn that no repeat action ... we know we are slow in issuing contempt notices, but we are also not powerless," Justice Gavai said.The Court observed that statements made in legislatures have sanctity. "When politicians say something in the Assembly, it has got sanctity. In fact the judgements say when we interpret laws, the speech given on the floor of the House can be used for interpreting," the Bench said. .Reddy had earlier landed in similar trouble when the top court took strong exception to his comments on an order granting bail to BRS leader K Kavitha..During today's hearing, Rohatgi also argued that a High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot order the Speaker to take time-bound decisions in disqualification matters. He added that courts can only request the Speaker in such cases.However, the top court questioned the Speaker's delay in even issuing notices on the disqualification petitions."Shall we record your statement that the Supreme Court can't issue directions to the Speaker even if the Speaker doesn't decide the disqualification for 3 or 4 years?" it asked..Another counsel suggested that if the Parliament deems it necessary, it can establish a timeline for the Speaker.In response, Justice Gavai remarked that what truly strengthens democracy, to a significant extent, are the directives issued by the Court from time to time. He pointed out that it was through the Supreme Court’s intervention that politicians are now mandated to file affidavits disclosing their criminal antecedents before contesting elections.Today's hearing in the case is yet to conclude. Senior Advocate Rohatgi has concluded his submissions. The hearing is slated to resume after the lunch break..[Read Live Coverage]