SC Slams Telangana CM Over Remarks On BRS MLAs’ Disqualification Case

The Supreme Court, on April 1, reprimanded Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy over his statement regarding the disqualification case of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs.

Reddy had asserted that even if BRS MLAs joined the Congress, no by-elections would be held.

The court found this statement problematic, suggesting that it mocked the anti-defection law enshrined in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih remarked that political statements made at public gatherings differ from those made in legislative assemblies, emphasizing that speeches in the House hold a certain sanctity.

The court also noted that political leaders must exercise caution while making statements that could undermine constitutional principles.

Judicial Concerns Over Legislative Delays

During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Telangana government, refused to comment on the CM’s statement.

The bench then directed that the Chief Minister be warned against making such remarks.

The court reminded Rohatgi that he had represented Reddy in previous cases, reinforcing the need for accountability.

Earlier, the court had raised concerns over delays in deciding disqualification petitions.

The court questioned whether authorities should impose a fixed timeframe for resolving such cases, particularly before the Assembly’s term ends.

Justice Gavai warned that excessive delays could erode democratic principles, stating, “The outcome cannot always be that the operation is successful, but the patient dies.”

BRS Seeks Urgent Decision On Disqualification Petitions

The petitions before the court pertain to the Telangana Assembly Speaker’s delay in ruling on the disqualification of seven BRS MLAs accused of defection.

The BRS demands an expedited decision, emphasizing that the Speaker has delayed action for nine months since receiving the complaints.

The legislators facing disqualification include Srinivas Reddy Parigi, Bandla Krishna Mohan Reddy, Kale Yadaya, T Prakash Goud, A Gandhi, Gudem Mahipal Reddy, and M Sanjay Kumar.

The party contends that the Speaker’s inaction violates the principles of fair legislative conduct and democratic governance.

The Supreme Court’s observations underscore the tension between political maneuvering and legal accountability.

The delay in disqualification decisions raises critical questions about the effectiveness of anti-defection laws and the role of the Speaker in maintaining legislative integrity.

As the legal battle continues, the court’s stance reinforces the necessity of upholding constitutional values while ensuring that political leaders remain answerable to the law.

Also Read: Supreme Court Seeks Reply On Uttarakhand Madrasa Crackdown