Home > Blog

Blog / 09 Feb 2026

Supreme Court Gives Telangana Speaker Three Weeks to Rule on Defections

Context:

Recently, the Supreme Court of India gave the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker a final three-week deadline to decide pending disqualification petitions against the last two of ten Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) legislators accused of defecting to the ruling Congress party. The Court warned that failure to meet the deadline would constitute contempt of court, underscoring the judiciary’s insistence on timely enforcement of the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law).

Background:

      • In 2023–24, ten BRS MLAs reportedly shifted allegiance to the Congress party. Disqualification petitions were filed under the Tenth Schedule, but adjudication by the Speaker was delayed. In December 2025, seven of the ten petitions were rejected, and one was subsequently decided, leaving two pending. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that Speakers cannot allow petitions to “die a natural death” until the end of the legislative term.
      • The Court has clarified that while the Speaker enjoys constitutional authority to act as a quasi-judicial tribunal, this authority is subject to judicial review, particularly in cases of mala fides, perversity, or unreasonable delay.

About Anti-Defection Law:

      • The Tenth Schedule (1985) was enacted to maintain political stability and prevent opportunistic party switching. Grounds for disqualification include:
        • Voluntary Exit: Legislators leaving their party voluntarily, which can be inferred from conduct and not only formal resignation.
        • Defying the Whip: Voting or abstaining contrary to party directions without permission.
        • Independent Members: Joining a party post-election.
        • Nominated Members: Joining a party within six months of taking office.
      • The Speaker or Chairman is the sole authority to decide these cases, acting as a quasi-judicial body. Judicial review, following the Kihoto Hollohan (1992) judgment, ensures accountability.

Challenges and Judicial Observations:

      • Partisan Bias: Speakers often belong to the ruling party, raising concerns over delayed or biased decisions.
      • Timeframe Issues: The law does not specify a fixed deadline for decisions, leading to delays.
      • Recent Court Guidance: In the Keisham Meghachandra Singh case (2020), the Supreme Court recommended a three-month timeframe and suggested considering an independent tribunal for future cases.
      • Merger Loophole: Legislators are not disqualified if their party merges with another party with the agreement of two-thirds of its legislators (91st Amendment, 2003).

Significance:

The Supreme Court’s directive reinforces that constitutional offices cannot be used to delay the enforcement of law, thereby maintaining the integrity of the anti-defection mechanism. It also reflects the judiciary’s balancing act between respecting Speaker authority and upholding democratic accountability.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s three-week deadline to the Telangana Speaker demonstrates the judiciary’s proactive role in enforcing the Tenth Schedule, ensuring that defection petitions are resolved in a timely and impartial manner. This step strengthens the anti-defection framework, promotes political stability, and underscores that constitutional authority must be exercised within legal and ethical limits.