The Supreme Court on Wednesday slammed Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s comments in the state Assembly that there will be no bypolls even if MLAs were to switch sides, and called it “mockery of the Tenth Schedule.” “If this is said in the floor of the House, your Honourable Chief Minister is making mockery of the Tenth Schedule,” Justice B R Gavai told Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the Assembly Speaker. The Tenth Schedule pertains to the anti-defection law. Justice Gavai was presiding over a two-judge bench which was hearing pleas by Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) MLAs against the Telangana Speaker's delay in deciding disqualification petitions of party legislators who had defected to the ruling Congress. He made the remarks after Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram, appearing for the BRS MLAs, referred to the reported statement. “Hon’ble Speaker Sir, through you, I want to assure the members that they need not worry about bye-elections. No bye-elections will happen. Even if they (BRS) desires to have one for their seats, there will be none. Even if their members switch sides, there will not be a bye-election,” Sundaram said, quoting the chief minister. Rohatgi told the bench, which also comprised Justice A G Masih, that he did not know in what context the statement was made and added that BRS MLAs must file an application if they have a grievance. He added that he was not appearing for the chief minister. Justice Gavai reminded him that he had appeared in another matter representing the chief minister. The reference, apparently, was to a hearing on the plea seeking transfer of trial in a 2015 cash-for-vote case against Reddy from Telangana to Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, in August last year. The court was then apprised that Reddy, while commenting on the grant of bail by the apex court to BRS leader K Kavitha in the Delhi excise policy scam case, had suggested a “deal between BRS and BJP”. The Supreme Court criticised this, following which Rohatgi tendered an apology. On Wednesday, a visibly annoyed Justice Gavai added, “You better warn that no repeat action. Though we are slow in issuing contempt notices, we are also not powerless.” The Supreme Court also questioned the Assembly Speaker for the delay in issuing notices on the disqualification petitions for about 10 months after they were filed. Rohatgi said that the courts can only exercise judicial review, which means review of a decision. As long as the Speaker does not take a decision, there is not much that courts can do, he submitted. “Judicial review can't be available at a stage prior to making of a decision. Decision is a pre-requisite for judicial review,” the senior counsel said. But the bench was not amused. Justice Gavai asked, “So the High Court could not have interfered? And this Court should also tie its hands away and look at the naked dance of democracy.” He added, “If Speaker does not at all act…courts in this country, which not only have power, but also duty as guardians of Constitution, would be powerless? If for four yrs, Speaker doesn't do anything, should Court tie its hand?” Justice Gavai said, “Whichever way we decide, we will only 'request' the Speaker.but, be it any constitutional functionary, if request or directions of this Court are not abided, this Court (under Article 142) is not powerless.”
