SC Reserves Verdict In MLAs' Defection Case

The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict in the high-profile case concerning the defection of 10 BRS MLAs to the Congress in Telangana.

During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Telangana Assembly Speaker's secretary, argued that no judicial precedent mandated a time limit for the Speaker's decision in defection cases.

He also contended that the Manipur case was entirely different and should be considered separately. (On 18 March 2020, in an extraordinary move, the Supreme Court had removed Manipur minister Thounaojam Shyamkumar Singh from the State cabinet since he had defected from the Congress to the BJP to enable the party to form the government.)

Additionally, Singhvi also asserted that the Rajendra Singh Rana v Swami Prasad Maurya case of 2003 was unique and not applicable to the current matter. (The Supreme Court had held in that case that the UP Speaker's failure to act on a disqualification petition by the BSP against 13 MLAs including Rajendra Singh Rana who had defected to the SP was unjustified. The court emphasized that the Speaker must decide on disqualification matters promptly and cannot prioritize recognition of splits or mergers over disqualification proceedings.)

Responding to this, Justice B R Gavai pointed out that the court had intervened in the Rana case and imposed disqualification. He asked Singhvi what would constitute a "reasonable time" for the Speaker's decision. Gavai also expressed concern over the way lawyers handled such cases, and said that their approach tended to shift once they reached the Supreme Court.

A lengthy hearing on the same issue was also conducted yesterday, with senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi arguing on behalf of the Speaker. Singhvi today continued arguments representing the Speaker's secretary.

Meanwhile, the lawyer representing Kaushik Reddy referred to recent remarks made by Chief Minister Revanth Reddy in the Assembly, where the latter had said that there would be no by-elections in Telangana. In response, Justice Gavai asked the Chief Minister to exercise restraint, recalling a similar incident in the past involving him and expressing concern over repeated behaviour.

Singhvi countered by saying that provocative remarks had also been made by the Opposition but were deemed irrelevant by the Bench.

The court has now reserved its verdict on the matter.