Update: 02 Apr 2025

CM Revanth Reddy is reported to have recently made a statement in the legislative assembly that no bye-elections would be held even if opposition Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs switched sides to the ruling Congress.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticized Congress leader and Telangana Chief Minister (CM) Revanth Reddy for reportedly declaring in the state legislature that there would be no bye-elections in the state even if members of the opposition BRS defected to the ruling Congress.

The court of Justices Augustine George Masih and B.R. Gavai declared,
*”If this is said on the floor of the house, your Hon’ble CM is making a mockery of the *10th Schedule (anti-defection law).”

The court was considering a case that stemmed from petitions to dismiss Danam Nagender, Kadiyam Srihari, and Venkata Rao Tellam, three Telangana MLAs who defected to the Congress after winning elections on the BRS ticket.

Two BRS MLAs, Kuna Pandu Vivekananda and Padi Kaushik Reddy, as well as Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, an MLA for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), contested this in the Supreme Court. The Speaker has been criticized by the petitioners for not reaching a decision on the issue in a timely manner.

Appearing for the petitioner-side, Senior Advocate C. Aryaman Sundaram today apprised the Supreme Court about CM Reddy’s statement.

“The Chief Minister on 26th March in the Assembly told the members that ‘I assure you through the Speaker that there will be no bye-elections whether you switch sides’ … it is an Assembly proceeding,” C. Aryama Sundaram said.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the official respondents and countered that the Assembly proceedings were not in question in the present case. He clarified that he was not representing the CM in this case.

Justice B.R. Gavai, however, suggested that the senior lawyer warn the CM against making such controversial statements in the legislature.
“Mr. Rohatgi, you have appeared for the Hon’ble Chief Minister once in that case. You better warn that no repeat action … we know we are slow in issuing contempt notices, but we are also not powerless,” Justice Gavai said.

The Supreme Court observed that statements made in legislatures have sanctity.
“When politicians say something in the Assembly, it has got sanctity. In fact, the judgments say when we interpret laws, the speech given on the floor of the House can be used for interpreting,” the Bench said.

Revanth Reddy had previously run into similar issues after the top court strongly objected to his remarks regarding a bail ruling for BRS leader K. Kavitha.

Rohatgi also contended at today’s hearing that a High Court cannot, in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution, mandate that the Speaker make decisions regarding disqualification within a set amount of time. He went on to say that in these situations, courts can only ask the Speaker.

The Speaker’s tardiness in sending out notices regarding the disqualification petitions, however, was questioned by the highest court.
“Shall we record your statement that the Supreme Court can’t issue directions to the Speaker even if the Speaker doesn’t decide the disqualification for 3 or 4 years?” it asked.

Another lawyer proposed that the Parliament set a schedule for the Speaker if it feels it is essential.

Justice Gavai responded by saying that the Court’s periodic directions are what actually, to a large degree, support democracy.

He emphasized that politicians are now required to submit affidavits revealing their criminal histories prior to running for office, thanks to the Supreme Court’s intervention.