MLAs defections: SC gives Speaker 3 months to decide
In its 74-page judgement, the court struck down the orders of the division bench of the High Court and wanted the Parliament to take a decision on the time-limit for the speaker to take a decision. It observed that it cannot allow a situation of 'operation successful, but patient dead' by allowing the petition to be kept pending, which would eventually allow the MLAs to benefit.
The apex court rejected the prayer by the petitioners that it should decide the disqualification petitions, referring to the precedents in Kihoto Hollahan and Subhash Desai cases of a similar nature.
BRS working president K T Rama Rao and MLA Padi Kaushik Reddy had filed the petitions against the MLAs' defections.
The Supreme Court observed that the MLAs should not ask for extending the process as if they persist with such a plea, the Speaker can take an adverse decision. Political defections have become a topic of discussions and if these are not stopped, these have the power to damage democracy, it held.
'We have also examined various speeches made in Parliament on this issue on various occasions. The Speaker's decision on disqualification proceedings is to avoid delay in courts. The Speaker is empowered to act against those who have changed parties. The powers of judicial review in relation to Articles 136, 226, 227 are very limited. The division bench erred in interfering with the orders of the single judge of the Telangana High Court. The Speaker, while acting as a judicial officer, acts as a tribunal subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court,' the court ruled.
The Court observed that the Speaker cannot get constitutional protection by acting in such a manner. 'We are setting aside the judgment of the division bench of the Telangana High Court on November 22, 2014. Even in important decisions, Speakers of the Legislative Assembly are delaying action against defectors who pose a threat to democracy. Therefore, there was a need for Parliament to review the existing mechanism for disqualification of MLAs under the Anti-Defection Act. Such actions become meaningless after years. It is unfortunate that the Speaker has issued a notice on the issue only after the Supreme Court had issued a notice'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
List steps you plan against betting apps, SC asks government
. NEW DELHI: Expressing serious concern over the deleterious impact of addictive betting applications on youth, the Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre to respond in two weeks what steps it is contemplating to save youngsters from getting financially ruined, often forcing them to commit suicide. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the counsel for Centre to specify in its affidavit "what remedial measures it is contemplating after applying mind to the gravity of the issue". The counsel said another bench is examining whether these apps are akin to gambling, requiring them to be banned, and the decision in that case would have a direct bearing on reliefs sought in a PIL filed by K A Paul. But the bench said, "You (the Centre) do not appear to take the problem seriously". The judges also issued notices to some states, RBI, ED, TRAI, Google India, Apple India, Dream11 and other gaming companies to file responses in two weeks. The petitioner had sought a complete ban on illegal betting apps and strict regulation of online gaming and fantasy sports, alleging these are being popularised by film stars, famous cricketers and other celebrities and end up drawing youth to the apps like moths to a flame. He said the more than 150-year-old Public Gambling Act, 1867, is unable to deal with the menace. Over 24 incidents of suicide have been reported from Telangana alone in the last one and a half years and are directly linked to debt traps created by gambling/betting platforms.
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
Race intensifies for Jubilee Hills bypoll ticket, Danam ‘throws hat' in ring?
Hyderabad: The race for a ticket to contest the bypoll to the Jubilee Hills constituency has intensified, with even a sitting MLA expressing keen interest in entering the fray. According to sources, turncoat MLA from Khairatabad, Danam Nagender , has sent feelers to the Congress leadership, indicating that if he is fielded for the bypoll, he can ensure party's victory not only in Jubilee Hills but also in Khairatabad constituency. Danam won the Khairatabad seat on a BRS ticket in 2023 and later joined the Congress ahead of the Lok Sabha elections. A senior Congress leader stated that there is a high demand for the Jubilee Hills bypoll ticket. "Almost everyone in the Congress is of the opinion that whoever wins the bypoll will be given a cabinet berth. This is because there is currently no minister in the cabinet from Greater Hyderabad. The Congress failed to win any of the 24 seats in Greater Hyderabad during the 2023 assembly election. Though the Congress won the Secunderabad Cantonment seat in a bypoll held along with the Lok Sabha polls, Sri Ganesh is a first-time MLA and was not considered for a cabinet berth. Danam, on the other hand, is a six-term legislator and also served in the cabinet of former chief minister YS Rajasekhar Reddy in the undivided state," said a senior leader. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad Sources told TOI that there could be two reasons for Danam being interested in contesting the Jubilee Hills bypoll. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Libas Purple Days Sale Libas Undo His position is considered the most volatile among the 10 turncoat BRS MLAs who joined the Congress. While all of them are still BRS MLAs in the official records of the state assembly, Danam contested the Secunderabad Lok Sabha seat on a Congress ticket, without officially resigning from the BRS. There is a speculation within the ruling party that Danam could be the first among the turncoats to face disqualification if the speaker takes a decision on the legislators. "Contesting from Jubilee Hills will provide a safe alternative to Danam. Also, if he gets the ticket and wins the byelection, he will have the highest scope of making it to the cabinet. He served as a minister in the YS Rajasekhar Reddy govt in the undivided state. But the AICC will finalise the candidate for the bypoll. The Telangana Congress is getting its own surveys conducted to know the strength of various candidates in the race for the ticket," a senior leader said. Meanwhile, on his part, Danam told TOI that he has not sought a ticket. "If the party wants me to contest, I will not only win Jubilee Hills but will also ensure the party wins the Khairatabad constituency, which I currently represent," he said. The bypoll notification is expected in Oct or Nov, along with elections to the Bihar state assembly. Jubilee Hills is a sitting seat of the BRS, and the party is likely to field a family member of Maganti Gopinath, whose death necessitated the bypoll. The bypoll is also prestigious for the BJP, as it will be the first major election for a seat in the assembly under the leadership of the BJP's new state president, Ramchander Rao. Also, the Jubilee Hills seat is part of the Secunderabad Lok Sabha constituency represented by Union minister G Kishan Reddy.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
By Nate Raymond Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order -U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people. "It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. "We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
