Sanctity of Speaker’s institution sandwiched between political compulsions, judicial scrutiny?
Hyderabad: The Supreme Court’s sharp observations regarding the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker’s inordinate delay in deciding disqualification petitions against defected MLAs have reignited a critical debate. It questions whether the Speaker’s office is currently being 'sandwiched' between intense political compulsions and the growing impatience of the judiciary. This situation is compounded by the accused MLAs themselves, who appear to show more interest in buying time than in upholding the sanctity of the Speaker's institution.
It may be noted that during the latest hearing, the apex court questioned why the Speaker continues to seek time despite repeated directions, stressing that prolonged inaction seriously erodes institutional sanctity. The bench pointedly remarked that the Speaker’s office, being a high constitutional authority, must act with impartiality and urgency. The court expressed concern that endless delays in deciding defection cases raise doubts about whether the institution is being used for political convenience rather than constitutional duty. Following the court's observations, the State BJP stepped up its ante against the arch-rival ruling Congress in the state. Union Minister G Kishan Reddy cited the court's remarks as a strong public rebuke of the ruling dispensation in the state.
The BRS, which petitioned against the MLAs in question, accused them of switching parties after being elected, thus triggering demands for disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The anti-defection law was designed to curb political instability and opportunism, but its enforcement has often been stalled by the Speaker's alleged reluctance to act against the ruling party's interests. However, the BRS is no stranger to such political maneuvering, having previously welcomed MLAs from other parties, such as the TDP and Congress, where similar pleas fell victim to delayed decisions. Legal experts argue that this pattern places the Speaker in a difficult positionexpected to uphold constitutional morality while facing pressures from the political establishment.
The latest Supreme Court comments reflect a growing frustration over similar delays across various states. In past rulings, the court has emphasised that Speakers must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable timeframe, warning that failure to do so undermines democratic accountability. Observers note that the judiciary’s stern tone signals a possible shift toward stricter oversight. The court hinted that it may issue firm directions if the Telangana Speaker fails to act promptly, underscoring that the credibility of the legislature itself is at stake.
Despite all these developments and the critical observations of the apex court, even senior MLAs are continuing to seek more time to respond and for the Speaker to take a decision, raising the question as to how seriously they are committed to upholding the sanctity of the institution to which they belong.