The court has the power and responsibility to ensure that the tenth timetable does not reduce to mockery, SC said.

The judge led by Justice Br Gavai said the Supreme Court would not remain a silent audience and looked at the gallery as a speaker. File | Image source: PTI

The Supreme Court said Thursday (April 3, 2025) that it has the right and responsibility to ensure that it acts as a quasi-judicial court under the anti-definition law of the Tenth Constitutional Schedule and does not sit on disqualified petitions until they “die from natural death” until they die the doomsday of the house and then throw it to them “double to them.”

The judge led by Justice Br Gavai said the Supreme Court would not remain a silent audience and watched the speaker wait six months before the end of his term in the Legislative Assembly, just saying “there is no time now.”

Justice Gawai firmly stated that the court did not allow the tenth timeline to be reduced to mockery.

The Supreme Court is hearing petitions filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi leaders, including KT Rama Rao and Padi Kaushik Reddy, seeking timely action by the Speaker of Telangana Parliament to disqualify lawsuits against 10 MLAs who transfer their loyal oath to the state’s ruling Congress party.

The hearing centered on one question whether the Constitutional Court cannot direct the spokesperson to decide on a petition for disqualification within a specified period. The court raised the stakes in this case. In past cases, the Supreme Court has asked the spokesperson to decide on such petitions within a “reasonable time” without having to boldly decide on deadlines.

“We asked at the beginning of this case whether the spokesperson would like to make a statement on the period when he could decide on the petition… Mr. Rohatgee [senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for respondents including the Speaker and the Secretary of Telangana Assembly] I have said that he has no instructions…so, now we will arrange this period.

At the hearing, the bench brought attention to the comments made by Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy on the floor of the house, after senior advocate CA Sundaram, to the petitioner, after saying that he spoke on behalf of the speakers, even BRS MLAS rejected the possibility of any possibility of BRS MLA, even if MLAS rejected any bias in the state.

“When the Chief Minister says he is ‘speaking on behalf of the Speaker’, how can you expect not to correct the petition for the Speaker’s decision to disqualify the Chief Minister and make a decision on time and in time?” Mr Sundaram questioned.

Justice Gavai said the Supreme Court had been released in early September 2024 at Mr Reddy, when he apologized for comments granting BRS leader K. Kavitha in the Delhi GST policy case.

“We hope the Chief Minister can exercise some restrictions. Did we make a mistake by letting go of him in a contempt case? We really don’t bother with what politicians say to us…we exercise self-restraint. The same is true for the expectations of the other two wings. [executive and legislature],” Judge Gawai expressed the court’s annoyance.

The court retained the trial case.