HC hears writs seeking disqualification of BRS MLAs

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court single bench of Justice Bollam Vijaysen Reddy on Monday adjudicated the batch of writ petitions seeking a direction to the Assembly Speaker to disqualify the BRS MLAs who defected to the Congress party.

Justice Reddy queried Advocate-General A Sudarshan Reddy when the Speaker will act on the disqualification petitions viz., six months / one year /two years /three years; how long the court should wait for such a decision; how long it has to keep the petitions, seeking relief pending. Replying to the query the A-G said they are all constitutional issues; courts cannot bypass them.

He said the petitioners have used most intemperate language against the Speaker in the court; on this ground itself, the petitions should be dismissed. They rushed to the court within 10 days of filing the petitions before the Speaker.

Ravishankar Jandhyala, senior counsel appearing for D Nagender, MLA Khairatabad (BRS) now in Congress (writ filed by Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, MLA, Nirmal (BJP), seeking disqualification of Nagender brushed aside the contentions of senior counsels appearing for BRS.

The counsels contended that the HCs of other States did pass orders directing the Speaker to pass orders and even furnished such citations. But he disputed the BRS arguments that in those cases the Speaker had passed orders viz., allotment of party symbol. The MLAs of other party were not allowed to enter the Assembly; merger of party with party in power; hence, the courts had directed the Speaker to pass orders.

Though in the batch of petitions filed by BRS the Speaker has not passed any orders on disqualification petitions pending before him. Hence, the courts cannot pass any orders against the speaker, he contended.

Gandra Mohan Rao, senior counsel for BRS, opposed the contention of A-G who told the court that BRS had rushed to court seeking a direction to the Speaker to pass orders on the disqualification petitions pending within 10 days as incorrect. He elucidated the dates on which the petitions were filed before the court.

‘It is not 10 days, nearly more than a month (on March10); the disqualification petitions were filed before the Speaker; when the Speaker’s office refused to take the petitions(sent through RPAD);a writ was filed seeking disqualification of BRS MLAs on April10, nearly a month after the disqualification petitions were filed.

He averred that the Speaker’s office received the disqualification petitions and acknowledged them only after the court issued a direction to the Secretary TGSLA to receive the petitions and acknowledge them.

If this court can direct the Secretary TS Assembly to receive the disqualification petitions, why can’t the court issue a direction to the Speaker to pass orders on the disqualification petitions pending before him, he contended.

He reminded the court about the Supreme Court’s observation, while dealing with similar petitions before it, which said a person, who faces disqualification, is not even liable to be continued as MLA for a single day.

The counsel informed the court that the Speaker has failed in discharging his constitutional duty by not receiving the disqualification petitions, thereby violating the Constitution, even after 3.5 months after receipt of the petitions, has not even issued notices to the defected MLAs.

The judge heard the three writ petitions--one filed by Padi Kaushik Reddy, MLA (Huzurabad BRS), seeking disqualification of Nagender; second filed by Kuna Pandu Vivekananda, MLA BRS party, seeking disqualification of Tellam Venkata Rao, MLA (Bhadradri Kothagudem BRS),and Kadiyam Srihari, MLA (Ghanpur); third was filed by Maheshwar Reddy, seeking disqualification of Nagender. Hearing in the case was adjourned to August 6 for arguments.