Summary and Analysis of Padi Kaushik Reddy Etc Vs The State Of Telangana And Others Etc

1. Heading of the Judgment

PADI KAUSHIK REDDY ETC. vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS ETC.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 2353-54 of 2025

With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 82 of 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment extensively discusses and relies on the following legal provisions:

• Constitution of India:
  Article 32 & Article 226 (Power of Supreme Court and High Courts to issue writs)
  Article 102 & Article 191(2) (Disqualifications for membership)
  Article 122 & Article 212 (Immunity of parliamentary/legislative proceedings from judicial review)
  Article 136 (Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court)
  Article 227 (Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court)

• Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India (Anti-Defection Law):
  Paragraph 2(1) & 2(1)(a) (Grounds for disqualification on defection)
  Paragraph 6, 6(1) & 6(2) (Speaker's/Chairman's authority to decide on disqualification and the finality of the decision)
  Paragraph 7 (Bar on jurisdiction of courts, held unconstitutional inKihoto Hollohan)

• Statutory Rules:
  The Members of Telangana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 , specifically Rule 6(1), 6(2) and Rule 7.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Court: The Supreme Court of India

• Coram/Judges: B.R. GAVAI, CJI and AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J

• Date of Judgment: July 31, 2025

• Appellants/Petitioners: Padi Kaushik Reddy, Kuna Pandu Vivekanand, Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, and others

• Respondents: The State of Telangana, The Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly, and others

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Part I: Factual Background and Procedural History

The case revolves around the alleged defection of several Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) from the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) party to the Indian National Congress (INC) after the Telangana State Legislative Assembly elections in November 2023.

• Defections and Petitions: Danam Nagender, Kadiyam Srihari, and Venkata Rao Tellam, all elected as BRS MLAs, allegedly joined the INC between March and April 2024. Following this, other MLAs from the BRS and one from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) filed disqualification petitions against them before the Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly between March and July 2024.

• Inaction of the Speaker: The petitioners alleged that the Speaker took no action on these petitions for several months. Aggrieved by this delay, they filed writ petitions before the High Court of Telangana.

• High Court Rulings:
  ASingle Judge of the High Court, on September 9, 2024, directed the Speaker to create a schedule for hearing the disqualification petitions within four weeks.
  However, the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly appealed this order. ADivision Bench of the High Court, on November 22, 2024, set aside the Single Judge's order.

• Appeal to Supreme Court: The original writ petitioners then appealed the Division Bench's decision to the Supreme Court. They also filed a fresh writ petition concerning other MLAs facing similar disqualification petitions.

Part II: Core Arguments of the Parties

• Appellants'/Petitioners' Arguments (Led by Shri C. Aryama Sundaram):
  The Speaker's inaction was deliberate and defeated the purpose of the Tenth Schedule. Notices to the defecting MLAs were issued only after the case was filed in the Supreme Court, despite a delay of over seven months.
  The Single Judge's order was reasonable and merely asked the Speaker to fix a hearing schedule, which the Division Bench should not have interfered with.
  The Supreme Court has previously directed Speakers to decide such petitions in a time-bound manner, particularly in the case ofKeisham Meghachandra Singh.
  Allowing such delays amounts to "playing a fraud on democracy."

• Respondents' Arguments (Led by Shri Mukul Rohatgi & Dr. A.M. Singhvi):
  Courts cannot issue timelines to the Speaker, as this would violate the principle of separation of powers.
  The Supreme Court inKihoto Hollohan held that courts cannot interfere before the Speaker makes a final decision, and a quia timet action (an action to prevent a future wrong) is not permissible.
  The judgment inKeisham Meghachandra Singh, which allowed for such a direction, was wrongly decided and did not correctly interpret the Constitution Bench judgments.
  It is for the Parliament, not the courts, to set a time limit for deciding disqualification petitions.

Part III: The Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of the Tenth Schedule and the precedent-setting judgments.

• Purpose of the Tenth Schedule: The Court revisited the parliamentary debates from 1985, noting that the express intention of making the Speaker the adjudicating authority was to ensure a "quick decision" and avoid the long delays of court proceedings. The Court lamented that this trust placed in the high office of the Speaker has often not been adhered to.

• Role of the Speaker as a Tribunal: The Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in Kihoto Hollohan that the Speaker, while deciding disqualification petitions under Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule, acts as a tribunal of a "judicial complexion." As a tribunal, the Speaker's decisions are subject to judicial review and do not enjoy absolute immunity under Articles 122 or 212 of the Constitution.

• Interpretation of Quia Timet Action: The Court extensively discussed the concept of quia timet. It clarified that the bar onquia timet actions in Kihoto Hollohan was intended to stop courts from issuing injunctions that would prevent or delay the Speaker from deciding a petition. It wasnot meant to bar judicial review that would aid the Speaker in arriving at a prompt decision. The Court concluded that unreasonable delay by the Speaker itself warrants judicial intervention.

• Precedents on Time-Bound Directions:
  The Court noted that inRajendra Singh Rana, the Constitution Bench itself disqualified MLAs due to the Speaker's failure to act and the approaching end of the Assembly's term.
  InKeisham Meghachandra Singh, the Court had explicitly directed the Speaker to decide petitions within a fixed period, holding that a period of three months is a reasonable outer limit.
  Even inSubhash Desai, the Constitution Bench held that the Speaker "must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period."

• Application to the Present Case: The Court found the Speaker's conduct in this case unacceptable. No notices were issued for over seven months, and action was taken only after the Supreme Court intervened. The Court held that this failure to act expeditiously defeats the very purpose of the anti-defection law. It also found no valid reason for the High Court's Division Bench to have overturned the Single Judge's very reasonable and restrained order.

Part IV: Final Judgment and Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and the writ petition, setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court's Division Bench. The Court issued the following clear and firm directions:

1. Time-Bound Decision: The Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly is directed to conclude the disqualification proceedings against all 10 MLAs involved in this case as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.

2. No Protracting Proceedings: The Speaker must not permit any of the MLAs facing disqualification to delay or protract the proceedings.

3. Adverse Inference: If any MLA attempts to delay the proceedings, the Speaker is directed to draw an adverse inference against them.