The telangana High court voiced worries over the assembly Speaker's continuous hold-up in responding to petitions for disqualification of BRS MLAs who defected to the congress party. Advocate General A Sudershan reddy was questioned by Justice B Vijaysen reddy over the anticipated timeline for a decision and the length of time the court should wait for a response at a hearing on a number of writ petitions intended to compel the Speaker to act.

The Advocate General emphasised in his response that the issues at hand are constitutional and that the courts cannot go around them.
 
Furthermore, he pointed out that the petitioners had used derogatory language against the Speaker, and he contended that this should be grounds for dismissing their petitions—especially given that they were filed just ten days after the disqualification petitions.
 
Senior attorney ravishankar jandhyala argued on behalf of mla Danam Nagender, who defected from the BRS to the congress party, that in other states, courts have given Speakers orders to decide in different situations, like party symbol allocation or exclusion of MLAs from the Assembly.
 

He emphasised that the Speaker in this case has not yet responded to any of the outstanding disqualification petitions.
 
Senior BRS lawyer Gandra Mohan Rao refuted the Advocate General's claim that the party had hurriedly sought the court.
 
He said that the first disqualification petitions were sent in to the Speaker about a month before the writ case for disqualification was filed.
 
Rao pointed out that the assembly Secretary received an order from the court before the Speaker's office recognised the petitions.
 

He contended that the court ought to order the Speaker to act upon the petitions if it could order the Secretary to accept them.
 
He also cited a supreme court ruling that said members who are disqualified ought not to serve as MLAs for even a single day.
 
 

Find out more: