Supreme Court's Stern Warning to Telangana Speaker
The Supreme Court of India on Monday delivered a sharp rebuke to Telangana Assembly Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar, terming his failure to decide disqualification petitions against 10 BRS MLAs who defected to the Congress as "gross contempt" of court. A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai issued a stern ultimatum, directing the Speaker to decide the matter by next week or face contempt proceedings.
Background of the Defection Case
The controversy dates back to July 31, when the Supreme Court initially set a three-month deadline for the Telangana Speaker to decide on disqualification petitions against the MLAs who switched from BRS to Congress. The bench had explicitly stated that the Speaker, while acting as a tribunal in such matters, does not enjoy any "constitutional immunity" from judicial scrutiny.
The court had emphasized that the primary objective of the anti-defection law was to curb political defections, and the purpose of entrusting this responsibility to the Speaker was to ensure expeditious decisions. However, the Speaker's alleged inaction for nearly seven months prompted the Supreme Court's strong reaction.
Court's Strong Observations and Parliament's Role
During the hearing, CJI Gavai told Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, representing the Speaker: "It's for him to decide whether he wants to take action or face contempt by the court... Finish it by next week or face contempt, it is for him to decide." The bench, which also included Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, was hearing a plea seeking contempt proceedings against the Speaker.
The Supreme Court had previously expressed concern about Speakers repeatedly delaying disqualification proceedings, describing it as the widely criticized situation of 'operation successful, patient dead'. In a significant observation, the court had asked Parliament to review the current mechanism under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution for deciding disqualification cases.
The court noted that while it doesn't possess advisory jurisdiction, "it is for the Parliament to consider whether the mechanism of entrusting the Speaker/Chairman the important task of deciding the issue of disqualification on the ground of defection is serving the purpose of effectively combating political defections or not."
The legal journey began when BRS approached the Telangana High Court, where a single-judge bench gave the Speaker four weeks to fix a hearing schedule. However, a division bench later set aside this order, asking the Speaker to decide the petitions in a reasonable time. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the division bench's order, leading to the current confrontation.
