Supreme Court objects to CM Revanth’s ‘no by-elections’ remark on BRS MLAs’ defection

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday strongly objected to chief minister A Revanth Reddy’s purported remarks on the House floor that, even if BRS MLAs defect to the Congress party, there would be no by-elections.

A panel of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was hearing petitions requesting the Telangana Assembly speaker’s prompt decision on disqualification petitions filed in connection with the defection of some MLAs from the BRS party to the ruling Congress party in Telangana. The Justices further stated that inactivity for months or even years cannot be justified.

What did CM Revanth tell the speaker about defections?

Senior advocate Aryama Sundaram, representing the petitioners, informed the bench of the CM Revanth’s remarks during the hearing. The senior counsel read the statement, emphasising that it was delivered in front of the speaker, as follows: “Hon’ble speaker sir, through you, I want to assure the members that they need not worry about bye-elections. No by-elections will happen. Even if BRS desires to have one for their seats, there will be none. Even if their members switch sides, there will not be a by-election.”

Justice Gavai expressed displeasure with the statement, saying, “CM (Revanth) is making fun of the 10th schedule if this is said on the Floor of the House.” Justice Gavai pointed out that the senior counsel had previously appeared for the CM in another case (where the CM was also rebuked over one of his statements) when senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for Telangana Assembly speaker/secretary) stated that he was unable to explain the statement because he was not representing the CM.

For reference, in August 2024, while hearing the appeal for the transfer of trial in the 2015 cash-for-votes case(s) against CM Revanth Reddy, a bench led by Justice Gavai voiced severe disapproval of his remarks about the court’s grant of bail to BRS leader K Kavitha.

Politicians’ statements made in the Assembly are crucial

During Wednesday’s session, Justice Gavai clarified that what is said in ‘Ramleela Maidan’ differs from what is spoken on the House Floor. “When politicians say something in the Assembly, it has some sanctity...in fact the judgment(s) say that when we interpret laws, the statement of the minister who has given speech on the floor of the House can be used for interpreting that statute.”

Finally, the bench instructed Rohatgi to warn the CM that there would be no ‘repeat action,’ stating that while the court may be reluctant to issue contempt notices, it is ‘not powerless.’

Speaker to 10 months to issue notice on disqualification petitions

In a sharp critique of the delay, Justice Gavai questioned whether judges should ‘tie their hands and look at the naked dance of democracy.’ The speaker took almost 10 months to issue a notice on the disqualification petitions, the court noted, despite the petitioners’ repeated requests and the High Court’s subsequent orders to make a decision within a ‘reasonable period.’ This raised concerns about the erosion of constitutional principles.

Senior attorney Mukul Rohatgi, speaking on behalf of the defendants, argued that the courts could only ‘request’ the speaker rather than give him orders. Justice Gavai, however, retorted that the Supreme Court does not lack authority under Article 142 in the event that constitutional officials disregard court orders. The speaker was summoned by the Supreme Court for contempt, he reminded them.

Disqualification petitions submitted in March 2024 and processed in January 2025

He asserted that the courts had an obligation to protect the Constitution.

“Should the court take no action if the speaker does nothing for 4 years?” pointing out the excessively long wait time for notices on disqualification petitions—which were submitted as early as March 2024 but weren’t processed until January 2025—he asked.

In addition, the Supreme Court also believed that the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court had no right to impede the Single Bench’s ruling, which had just asked the speaker to establish a four-week timeframe for decision-making. According to Justice Gavai, ‘the Division Bench had no reason to get involved.’

The bench emphasised that democratic procedures should not be undermined by legislative inaction, even as it acknowledged the speaker’s autonomy.

“You proceeded when the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, but you felt it was appropriate to stop while it was pending before the HC,” Justice Gavai said. The courts should have the authority to determine what constitutes ‘reasonable’ time, he argued, unless the speaker makes that determination.

Who switched over the Congress from BRS?

As many as 10 BRS MLAs switched over to the Congress after Revanth Reddy became the chief minister following the party’s victory in the Assembly polls in November last year. Besides the MLAs, six MLCs and senior leaders like K Keshav Rao, his daughter and Hyderabad mayor Gadwal Vijayalaxmi from BRS have also switched loyalties.

Khairatabad MLA Danam Nagender, who had been the BRS party’s nominee and won the Assembly elections, contested on a Congress ticket for the Parliamentary elections.

BRS MLAs Kuna Pandu Vivekananda and Padi Kaushik Reddy had requested for a direction to the speaker to disqualify MLA Bhadradri Koghagudem, Venkata Rao Tellam; MLA Ghanpur-Hanmakonda, Kadiyam Srihari; and MLA Khairatabad, Danam Nagender for defecting to Congress without resigning from the BRS. The BRS knocked the High Court and Supreme Court against the Telangana speaker’s delay in deciding the disqualification petition in respect to these defected MLAs.

With inputs from LiveLaw