If Speaker Does Nothing For 4 Years, Should Courts Just Sit And Watch? Justice Gavai Questioned

Delhi/Hyderabad, April 2 (Maxim News): The hearing on the MLAs defection case in Telangana began in the Supreme Court today. the hearing is being held on the petitions filed by BRS leaders Padi Kaushik Reddy, KTR and BJP leader Maheshwar Reddy.

Here To Join Us On WhatsApp

During the last hearing, lawyers presented arguments on behalf of the petitioners. Today, senior lawyers Mukul Rohati and Abhishek Manu Siknghvi will present arguments on behalf of the Telangana Assembly Speaker, who are the respondents, and the 10 MLAs facing allegations of defection.

Mukul Rohatgi has now started his arguments on behalf of the Speaker. He said that the courts should not interfere with the Speaker’s special powers. He said that there is a possibility of judicial review only after the Speaker has taken a decision. He brought to the court’s attention that the High Court has not yet taken any decision on the defection. The case is pending there.

Here To Join Us On WhatsApp

Justice BR Gavai said that Mukul Rohatgi’s arguments are different from the judgments given by the Supreme Court’s Constitution Benches in the past. Mukul Rohatgi argued that the courts cannot take away the special powers granted to the Speaker by the Constitution.

Justice BR Gavai said that if the Speaker does not take a decision, should the courts not intervene? If the Speaker does not take a decision for five years, should the courts not take a decision? Mukul Rohatgi said that one constitutional system cannot dominate another constitutional system. However, Justice BR Gavai questioned Mukul about whether the courts should be able to advise or order the Speaker to take a decision at the right time.

Here To Join Us On WhatsApp

Rohati said that the Speaker cannot act according to the wishes of the petitioners on the defection. The petitioners had written to the Speaker on March 18, 2024.

He argued that notices were issued to 10 MLAs on January 16, 2025. The Speaker was performing his duties. Why file writs on writs if there is no faith in the Speaker? Why do the petitioners not stop until the Speaker takes a decision? The senior lawyer questioned.

Here To Join Us On WhatsApp

He told the court that a petition was filed in the court within a week of the complaint to the Speaker to take action against the MLAs. He said that they were filing one writ petition after another. He said that they were filing writ petitions in the court without even a chance to think.

He said that the single judge bench had said that the matter should be scheduled within four weeks. The division bench had struck down those orders. Mukul Rohati argued that this case is linked to the Rana case. That is not reasonable at all. The Rana case is a completely different matter.

Here To Join Us On WhatsApp

Justice BR Gavai intervened in Rohatgi’s arguments. The judge made it clear that the courts will act as the guardians of the Constitution.

If the Speaker does not take action, if the Speaker does nothing for four years, should the courts just sit and watch? Justice Gavai questioned. (Maxim News)

---

Next Story:

Now you can get the latest stories from Indtoday on Telegram every day. Click the link to subscribe.  Click to follow Indtoday’s Facebook page, Twitter, and Instagram. For all the latest Hyderabad News updates