The counsel for the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs said the speaker had sought time earlier as well and only a single meeting has so far been held by him in this regard
Hyderabad: The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Telangana Assembly Speaker to positively decide within three weeks, the pending petitions relating to the alleged defection of BRS MLAs to the Congress, failing which contempt proceedings would be initiated. During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Speaker, submitted that decisions had been taken in eight cases and two petitions remained pending.
The court made it clear that no further adjournments would be granted and emphasised, more than once, that sufficient time had been provided to the Speaker to complete the inquiry.
The Supreme Court division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice A.G. Masih was hearing the matter in compliance with its order dated July 31, 2025, by which the Speaker had been granted three months to decide the disqualification petitions.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Speaker, submitted that decisions had already been taken in eight cases and that only two petitions, concerning Danam Nagender and Kadiam Srihari, remained pending. He sought additional time of three weeks, citing the ongoing municipal elections and stating that the Speaker was on the verge of taking a decision in the remaining cases.
This request was strongly opposed by advocate P. Mohit Rao, representing the petitioners, who argued that repeated adjournments had been sought earlier and that the delay was deliberate. He pointed out that Nagender, elected as a BRS MLA, had contested the Secunderabad Lok Sabha election as a Congress candidate and continued to claim BRS membership even after losing the election. He submitted that Srihari had secured a Congress ticket for his daughter, who won as an MP, and had openly campaigned for the Congress while technically remaining a BRS MLA.
The bench observed that while one decision had now been taken, the Speaker had sought time on multiple occasions earlier. Justice Sanjay Karol noted that although the Speaker had previously requested three weeks, the court had granted only two weeks to assess progress. Considering that some development had taken place, the court granted limited additional time but categorically warned that failure to take a positive decision would compel the court to initiate contempt proceedings.
The court observed: "We expect the Speaker to positively take a decision, failing which we shall proceed to issue contempt."
After pronouncing the order, Justice Sanjay Karol told the petitioner orally: "We request you not make reels out of it. This is what is happening. Don't do it. What is happening is, it's a new industry."
