Failure of Speaker to decide disqualification petitions within reasonable time is subject to judicial review: Telangana High Court

The Supreme Court directed the Speaker of the Telangana Assembly to fix a schedule of hearings within four weeks to decide the pending disqualification petitions of the defected BRS MPs, while rejecting the argument of the defected MPs and the state that the Speaker cannot be directed to decide the disqualification petitions within a specific time period.

“If the contention of the learned Advocate General and other learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents that this Court can never issue directions to the Speaker to decide on disqualification within a particular time frame is to be accepted, then the question arises as to “how long the inaction or indecision of the Speaker can be tolerated by this Court.”the bank consisting of Judge B. Vijaysen Reddy asked.

In fact, during the hearing, the defendants argued that the administrative order could not be invoked against the Speaker’s inaction in deciding the disqualification appeals. Their argument was based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992) It was held that a writ of summons cannot be filed against the Speaker at a stage before the decision has been taken, i.e. when the Speaker has not yet taken a decision on disqualification.

In other words, the statement of claim can only be brought against the speaker after he has decided on the disqualification applications and not before. In the defendant’s view, the relief sought in the statement of claim is a “Quia Timet” an act that is not subject to judicial review.

The court rejected this claim and found that the defendants had wrongly reasoned their arguments, Kihoto Hollohans Verdict.

“To claim that indecision/inaction is not subject to judicial review, one must ask for how long.”the court explained.

“It cannot be said that the Speaker can wait for five years until the term of the House is over and the Court should still put its hands in the sand. Such an approach would be against the Constitutional mandate and contrary to democratic principles. If the judgment in KIHOTO HOLLOHAN (2 supra) is interpreted in the manner suggested by the learned Advocate General and other learned senior counsel, then a situation may arise where the party would be left with no remedy if the Speaker declines to give a decision in the disqualification petition.”the court added.

Referring to the decision of the Keisham Meghachandra Singh’s In this case, the Court clarified that the Speaker may be instructed to decide on the application for disqualification within a specified period of time.

“The decision in KIHOTO HOLLOHAN (2 supra) was considered by a three-judge bench in KEISHAM MEGHACHANDRA SINGH (1 supra) and it was clearly held that the law regarding indecision/inaction of the Speaker is subject to judicial review and direction can be given to decide the application for disqualification within a specified period.”the court explained.

The court followed the plaintiff’s argument that the court must direct the Speaker to decide on the disqualification petition within a specified time to curb horse-trading, otherwise it would lead to continued electoral fraud. The court stated that “Any delay in dealing with a request for disqualification would be a fraud on democracy.”

After finding that no progress had been made in adjudicating the application for disqualification and that there was no information available on the status of the applications for disqualification, the Court considered that the applicants had demonstrated special circumstances and were entitled to relief in those applications.

“Having due regard to the constitutional status and dignity of the office of the Speaker, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No. 3, Secretary, Telangana Legislative Assembly, to forthwith submit the disqualification petitions to respondent No. 2, Speaker, Telangana Legislative Assembly, for fixing a schedule of hearing (filing of pleadings, documents, personal hearing, etc.) within four (4) weeks from today. The schedule so fixed shall be communicated to the Clerk of the High Court of the State of Telangana. If no hearing is held within four (4) weeks, it is made clear that the matter shall be re-listed on its own initiative and appropriate orders shall be passed.”the court ordered.

Case Title: Kuna Pandu Vivekanand v. State of Telangana, WP 11098/2024 (and connected matters)

Click here to read/download the judgment