The Telangana High Court on Monday instructed the Secretary of the State Legislative Assembly to present the disqualification petitions, filed against three Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leaders who switched allegiance to the Congress, to Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar.

Justice B Vijaysen Reddy observed that although arguments on the disqualification petitions had concluded in August 2024, there was no update regarding their status. As a result, the judge stated that the petitioners had established a special case and were entitled to relief in these writ petitions.

In disposing of the case, the Court clarified that if no action is taken within four weeks, the matter would be reopened suo motu, and appropriate orders would be issued.

The Court was hearing petitions filed by BRS Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) Kuna Pandu Vivekananda and Padi Kaushik Reddy, along with Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Alleti Maheshwar Reddy. They challenged the Speaker's inaction in deciding disqualification petitions against MLAs Venkata Rao Tellam, Kadiyam Srihari, and Danam Nagender. 

The three MLAs were originally elected on a BRS ticket but later defected to the Congress party, which currently holds power in the State.

The petitioners' counsel argued that disqualification petitions had been filed in April, but the Speaker had not acknowledged them. It was contended that the Speaker's or the Legislative Assembly Secretary's refusal to receive the petitions amounted to an abdication of duty and a breach of the constitutional mandate.

In response, the State argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable. It claimed that the conduct of the petitioners, the manner in which the writ petitions were filed, and the unwarranted and intemperate allegations made against the Speaker did not merit the Court's intervention.

The State's counsel also strongly argued that the disqualification petitions were untenable, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in the Kihoto Hollohan case as the legal basis for their position.

“It cannot be said that the Speaker can wait for five years, until the completion of the term of the house and still Court should lay off its hands. Such approach would be against Constitutional Mandate and antithetical to democratic principles. If the judgment in KIHOTO HOLLOHAN's case is construed in the manner canvassed by the learned Advocate General and other learned senior counsel, then there may arise a situation where the party would not have any remedy if the Speaker declines to take any decision in the disqualification petition."

The Court dismissed the State counsel's argument that the Speaker cannot be directed to resolve disqualification petitions within a specified time frame.

The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in *Keisham Meghachandra Singh's* case, clarifying that it is permissible to issue directions to the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions within a specified time frame.

With these observations, the Court directed the Speaker to address the disqualification pleas concerning the defected MLAs within four weeks.

Senior Advocates C Aryama Sundaram, Gandra Mohan Rao, Ramchander Rao, and Advocate Gummala Bhaskar Reddy appeared for the petitioners.

Advocate General P Sri Raghuram and Senior Advocates Shankar Jandhyala, B Mayur Reddy, A Ravinder Reddy, K Pradeep Reddy, and Mohd Omer Farooq appeared for the respondents.