PADI KAUSHIK REDDY ETC. versus THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1879 · Decided: 31-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1879 : 2025 INSC 912
Padi Kaushik Reddy Etc. 
v. 
The State of Telangana and Others Etc. 
(Civil Appeal No(s). 9932-9933 of 2025)
31 July 2025
[B.R. Gavai,* CJI and Augustine George Masih, J.]
Issue for Consideration
The matters herein present a challenge to the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the High Court whereby the judgment dated 
09.09.2024 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in a batch 
of Writ Petitions was set aside. Whether the Division Bench erred 
in interfering with the order of the Single Judge of the High Court, 
as Single Judge had only asked the Speaker to fix a schedule of 
hearing (filing of pleadings, documents, personal hearing etc.) 
within a period of four weeks.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Tenth Schedule – Arts. 122 and 212 – 
Members of Telangana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification 
on ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 – Rules 6(1), 6(2) – After 
winning election of the State Legislative Assembly, three 
members of BRS who won the election from their respective 
constituency joined INC which eventually formed the 
Government – Appellants in the lead matter filed disqualification 
petitions before the Telangana State Legislative Assembly with 
a common prayer that MLAs from BRS who joined the INC 
be declared as disqualified from continuing as members of 
the Telangana Legislative Assembly – Since the petitions for 
disqualification filed by the Appellants/Petitioners were kept 
pending before the Speaker, writ petitions were filed before the 
High Court – The Single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment 
and order dated 09.09.2024, had only asked the Speaker for 
fixing a schedule of hearing (filing of pleadings, documents, 
personal hearing etc.) within a period of four weeks – However, 
the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the order of the 
Single Judge of the High Court – Correctness:
Held: 1. There was absolutely no occasion for the Judges of the 
Division Bench of the High Court to have interfered with the well-
* Author
1880
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
reasoned order of the Single Judge, as Single Judge had only 
asked the Speaker to fix a schedule of hearing (filing of pleadings, 
documents, personal hearing etc.) within a period of four weeks – 
The Single Judge had not even issued any direction to decide 
the disqualification proceedings within a time-bound period – This 
Court, therefore, find that the Division Bench of the High Court 
has erred in interfering with the order of the Single Judge of the 
High Court. [Para 96]
2. In the instant case, it could be seen that the Speaker did not 
even find it necessary to issue notices in the petitions filed by the 
present petitioners for a period of more than seven months and 
only after the proceedings were filed before this Court, did the 
Speaker find it necessary to issue notice – Non-issuance of any 
notice for a period of more than seven months and issuing notice 
only after either the proceedings were filed before this Court, or 
after this Court had heard the matter for the first time cannot by 
any stretch be envisaged as acting in an expeditious manner – 
In light of the facts of the present case, a failure to issue any 
direction to the Speaker, in view of this Court, would frustrate the 
very purpose for which the Tenth Schedule has been brought in 
the Constitution. [Paras 92, 93, 95]
3. It is pertinent to note that all the judgments of the Constitution 
Bench, right from Kihoto Hollohan to Subhash Desai, consistently 
hold that the Speaker is the authority who should decide the issue 
with regard to disqualification at the first instance – This Court, 
however, finds it appropriate to direct the Speaker to decide the 
petitions pending before it within a stipulated period – It is clarified 
that this Court is inclined to do so in view of the specific finding of 
the Constitution Bench of this Court in the cases of Kihoto Hollohan 
and Subhash Desai, that the Speaker, while acting as an adjudicating 
authority in Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution, 
acts as a Tribunal amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court 
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and of this Court 
under Article 136 of the Constitution – There is also a finding of the 
Constitution Bench that the Speaker/Chairman, while acting as an 
adjudicating authority under Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the 
Constitution does not enjoy the constitutional immunity as avail

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.