The Supreme Court of India, in Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana (2025 INSC 912), held that the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly does not enjoy constitutional immunity under Articles 122 or 212 of the Constitution when exercising powers under the Tenth Schedule pertaining to defection and disqualification of legislators. A Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the judgment on 14 July 2025, granting the Telangana Assembly Speaker three months to decide pending disqualification petitions against ten BRS MLAs alleged to have defected to the ruling Congress party.
Background
The case arose from the political turmoil in Telangana following the Congress party's assumption of power in late 2023. Between March and April 2024, ten legislators belonging to the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) crossed over to the Congress. The BRS filed disqualification petitions against these MLAs under the Tenth Schedule between 18 March and 8 April 2024. BRS leader Padi Kaushik Reddy approached the Supreme Court after the Speaker failed to act on the petitions for over a year.
The broader constitutional question centred on whether a Speaker, while adjudicating disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, functions as a tribunal subject to judicial review, or whether the immunity conferred on legislative proceedings by Articles 122 and 212 shields the Speaker's decisions and delays from judicial scrutiny.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court established the following principles:
No constitutional immunity: The Speaker does not enjoy the protection of Articles 122 and 212 when exercising determinative jurisdiction under the Tenth Schedule. The anti-defection jurisdiction is quasi-judicial in nature and is distinct from legislative proceedings.
Justiciable jurisdiction: The Court held that the Speaker's Tenth Schedule powers constitute a "determinative jurisdiction" that is fully subject to judicial review. Courts may examine both the process and the outcome of disqualification proceedings.
Mandatory timeline: The Bench directed the Speaker to decide all pending disqualification petitions within three months. It warned that failure to fix a hearing within four weeks would attract adverse inferences and potentially invite contempt proceedings.
Structural accountability: The Court observed that the persistent delay by Speakers across states in deciding disqualification petitions undermined the constitutional purpose of the Tenth Schedule and effectively rewarded defection by allowing defecting legislators to continue in office indefinitely.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment reinforces and extends the line of authority from Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), which had recognised judicial review of Speaker's decisions under the Tenth Schedule but left open the scope of such review in cases of delay and inaction. The Court's holding that even the Speaker's failure to act is justiciable significantly strengthens the hand of petitioners seeking to enforce the anti-defection law.
The three-month timeline, while imposed on the Telangana Speaker specifically, establishes a benchmark that practitioners in other states can invoke. Parties seeking disqualification orders in pending matters before other Speakers may cite this judgment to argue that prolonged inaction itself constitutes a justiciable ground for Supreme Court intervention under Article 136.
The judgment also carries political significance. By holding that delays effectively reward defection, the Court has articulated a constitutional rationale for mandatory timelines that may prompt future legislative reform of the Tenth Schedule itself. Practitioners advising political parties should note that the window for post-defection inaction by Speakers has now narrowed considerably.