The petition sought to prevent several members of the Telangana Legislative Assembly (MLAs) who had defected from the BRS to the INC from attending the ongoing assembly sessions, participating in legislative discussions, and casting their votes.
Published Date – 28 November 2024, 11:38 PM
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: A division bench of the Telangana High Court, led by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, has dismissed a petition filed by Kilari Anand Paul, the President of Praja Shanti Party. The petition sought to prevent several members of the Telangana Legislative Assembly (MLAs) who had defected from the Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS) to the Indian National Congress (INC) from attending the ongoing assembly sessions, participating in legislative discussions, and casting their votes. The petitioner argued that the defected legislators had violated the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which deals with disqualification on the grounds of defection. According to Paul, the defected MLAs should be disqualified as they had initially contested the elections on the BRS ticket and later joined the INC, thus incurring disqualification under the anti-defection law.
However, the bench dismissed the petition, ruling that the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly must first adjudicate the disqualification petitions in accordance with the procedures outlined under the Members of Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on the Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986. The court emphasized that until the Speaker had made a decision on the disqualification matter, the defected MLAs could not be restrained from participating in the legislative process.
Following complaints from several petitioners, including Padi Kaushik Reddy, who argued that the Speaker’s delay in addressing the disqualification requests was undermining the intent of the anti-defection law. The single judge had set a timeline of four weeks for the Speaker to schedule hearings and address the disqualification petitions. However, the State Advocate General, A. Sudershan Reddy, raised concerns that such a directive might violate the constitutional separation of powers, highlighting the delicate balance required between different constitutional authorities. The division bench, while agreeing with the Advocate General’s concerns, modified the single judge’s order, removing the specific time frame for the Speaker’s action. Nevertheless, the bench reiterated that the Speaker must resolve the disqualification issues expeditiously, within a “reasonable time” frame, considering the facts and the intent of the law.
In the latest hearing, senior counsel representing the defected MLAs argued that the petition itself was not maintainable, as the decision on disqualification fell under the purview of the Speaker, not the judiciary. They contended that only after the Speaker had made a ruling could any further legal action be taken regarding the attendance and participation of the defected members in the legislative sessions. Ultimately, the bench ruled that the defected MLAs could not be barred from the Assembly until the Speaker made a determination on their disqualification. As a result, the High Court dismissed the interlocutory application, allowing the defected legislators to continue their participation in the legislative process until the disqualification petitions were resolved by the Speaker.
Writ plea challenging directive issued by Gadwal Collector taken on record
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court has taken on record a writ petition challenging a directive issued by the Gadwal Collector in connection with the ongoing BC survey in the state. The petition, filed by the Telangana Madasi Kuruva/Madari Kuruva SC Sankshema Sangam, contends that enumerators conducting the door-to-door survey are wrongly insisting on the production of community certificates for individuals claiming to belong to the Madasi Kuruva or Madari Kuruva communities. The petitioners allege that the Gadwal Collector had instructed Tehsildars and Mandal Parishad Development Officers (MDPOs) to demand such certificates, despite the fact that the community has been officially recognized as a Scheduled Caste (SC) by the Presidential Order, and not as a Backward Caste (BC). The petitioners argue that this requirement is unjust, as the community is still awaiting a final decision from the National Commission for Scheduled Castes regarding whether it should be categorized under the SC or BC category. Further, the petition claims that the community members cannot provide documentary proof of their caste status until the matter is resolved. The petitioners argue that this is violating their constitutional rights by preventing them from having their caste properly recorded in the survey. They seek a direction from the court to ensure that their caste is recorded in the survey forms, even if no document is produced, and that the form explicitly notes that the supporting documents were not available. As the deadline for completing the survey approaches, with the survey scheduled to conclude by the end of November, Justice Nanda directed the authorities to respond to the petition by November 29.
