Constitution of India – Tenth Schedule – Arts. 122 and 212 – Members of Telangana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 – Rules 6(1), 6(2) – After winning election of the State Legislative Assembly, three members of BRS who won the election from their respective constituency joined INC which eventually formed the Government – Appellants in the lead matter filed disqualification petitions before the Telangana State Legislative Assembly with a common prayer that MLAs from BRS who joined the INC be declared as disqualified from continuing as members of the Telangana Legislative Assembly – Since the petitions for disqualification filed by the Appellants/Petitioners were kept pending before the Speaker, writ petitions were filed before the High Court – The Single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 09.09.2024, had only asked the Speaker for fixing a schedule of hearing (filing of pleadings, documents, personal hearing etc.) within a period of four weeks – However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the order of the Single Judge of the High Court – Correctness:
Held: 1. There was absolutely no occasion for the Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court to have interfered with the well* Author reasoned order of the Single Judge, as Single Judge had only asked the Speaker to fix a schedule of hearing (filing of pleadings, documents, personal hearing etc.) within a period of four weeks – The Single Judge had not even issued any direction to decide the disqualification proceedings within a time-bound period – This Court, therefore, find that the Division Bench of the High Court has erred in interfering with the order of the Single Judge of the High Court. [Para 96]
2. In the instant case, it could be seen that the Speaker did not even find it necessary to issue notices in the petitions filed by the present petitioners for a period of more than seven months and only after the proceedings were filed before this Court, did the Speaker find it necessary to issue notice – Non-issuance of any notice for a period of more than seven months and issuing notice only after either the proceedings were filed before this Court, or after this Court had heard the matter for the first time cannot by any stretch be envisaged as acting in an expeditious manner – In light of the facts of the present case, a failure to issue any direction to the Speaker, in view of this Court, would frustrate the very purpose for which the Tenth Schedule has been brought in the Constitution. [Paras 92, 93, 95]
3. It is pertinent to note that all the judgments of the Constitution Bench, right from Kihoto Hollohan to Subhash Desai, consistently hold that the Speaker is the authority who should decide the issue with regard to disqualification at the first instance – This Court, however, finds it appropriate to direct the Speaker to decide the petitions pending before it within a stipulated period – It is clarified that this Court is inclined to do so in view of the specific finding of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the cases of Kihoto Hollohan and Subhash Desai, that the Speaker, while acting as an adjudicating authority in Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, acts as a Tribunal amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution – There is also a finding of the Constitution Bench that the Speaker/Chairman, while acting as an adjudicating authority under Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution does not enjoy the constitutional immunity as available either under Article 122 or 212 of the Constitution. [Paras 99, 100]
4. Therefore, the impugned judgment and final order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is quashed and set aside – Further, the Speaker is directed to conclude the disqualification proceedings pending against the 10 MLAs pertaining to the present appeals/petition as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. [Para 102(ii), 102(iii)] Constitution of India – Arts. 226, 227, 136, Tenth Schedule – Power of Speaker/Chairman to decide disqualification petitions under Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution is pre-eminently of a judicial complexion – Discussed. [Paras 80 to 87]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.