SC directs Telangana Speaker to decide on disqualification petitions against 10 MLAs within three months
The judgment was delivered by a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai.
The court ordered the Speaker should draw adverse inference against any MLA who tries to delay the disqualification proceedings.
The apex court urged the Parliament to review the disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, saying Assembly Speakers tend to delay the process due to latent political considerations and to protect the MLAs under question, posing a danger to the democratic framework.
The disqualification petitions were filed the Bharat Rashtriya Samiti (BRS) before the Telangana Assembly Speaker in March-April 2024.
Danam Nagender, Kadiyam Srihari, Tellam Venkat Rao, Pocharam Srinivas Reddy, Kale Yadaiah, M. Sanjay Kumar, Krishnamohan Reddy, Mahipal Reddy, Prakash Goud, and Arekapudi Gandhi, originally elected on BRS ticket switched to Congress.
The BRS moved Supreme Court in January citing the lack of action from the Speaker and Legislature Secretary, noting that even preliminary notices were not issued to the defected MLAs.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
30 minutes ago
- India Today
Six years after Article 370: What would statehood change for J&K?
Six years after the abrogation of Article 370 and the reorganisation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two separate Union Territories—Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh—there is now a strong political push to restore July 20, J&K's Chief Minister Omar Abdullah called for restoring statehood. 'We're not asking for something that is not our due. Statehood is a right; it was promised to the people,' he Central government had also assured the Supreme Court during the hearing on petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 that restoration of statehood will be done expeditiously. Under the Constitution, India is a 'Union of States', and the powers of a State and a Union territory under the federal system are clearly DID THE SUPREME COURT SAY?In 2023, while passing its verdict, the Supreme Court noted that the Parliament under the Constitution has admitted and established new States in article 3 of the Constitution would legally allow the Parliament to 'extinguish' the status of a State in the manner that was done by reorganising J&K into two Union territories was left open by the five-judge bench, however, noted that 'states under the Indian Constitution have their own independent constitutional existence.'The Supreme Court had agreed not to go into the issue of legal validity of the J&K Reorganisation Act 2019, after the Solicitor General for the Union of India told the court that 'statehood will be restored to Jammu and Kashmir and that its status as a Union territory is temporary.'The Court in its verdict noted that the Solicitor General had clarified that 'the status of the Union Territory of Ladakh will not be affected by the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.'The Court in its verdict had directed that 'Restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible.' It has, however, been nearly 2 years since the Sc is also a petition pending before the Supreme Court of India, likely to be heard on August 8, seeking restoration of statehood to J&K. The petition has argued that delay in restoration of statehood is 'gravely affecting the rights of the inhabitants of Jammu andKashmir and also violating the basic structure of federalism.'WHAT DOES STATEHOOD MEAN UNDER THE CONSTITUTION?States are the foundational units of India's federal structure. According to a paper by former Law Commission member P.M. Bakshi, 'The essence of federalism lies in the sharing of legal sovereignty by the Union and the federating units.'advertisementDemarcation of legislative power between the Center and the states also helps in defining the boundaries of the executive power shared by the two, as usually the legislative power controls the powers of the Executive legislatures have exclusive powers over subjects enumerated in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and concurrent powers over those enumerated in List powers of the legislature include authorisation of all expenditure, taxation and borrowing by the state legislatures, apart from exercising the usual power of financial control, use all normal parliamentary devices like questions, discussions, debates, adjournments and no-confidence motions and resolutions to keep a watch over day-to-day work of the executive. They also have their committees on estimates and public accounts to ensure that grants sanctioned by legislature are properly a state, the Governor also has limited powers to interfere with governance and ordinarily acts only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. In a UT, the situation is different, as the LG has expanded powers of discretion and there are restrictions on the subjects which are under control of the legislature and executive IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR?Under Article 239 of the Constitution, Union Territories are administrated by the President acting to such extent, as he thinks fit, through an Administrator appointed by him. Currently, the role of the Administrator of J&K and Ladakh is held by the Lieutenant Governor (LG).At present, following the J&K Reorganisation, the Union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh have limited powers to legislate and the Reorganisation Act, the UT of J&K has been included under Article 239A of the Constitution, which means that the UT has a legislative Assembly with 107 seats that are filled by direct UT of Ladakh is directly administered by the President, which means that it does not have an elected Assembly, and the Parliament of India passes any laws and monitors the administration of the the parliament under these provisions can introduce changes to the powers of the UT legislature, the J&K Reorganisation Act has granted extensive powers to the LG. Which means that, effectively, the Home Minister of India has control over the Police and bureaucratic apparatus in both union to Section 36 relating to Financial Bills in the Reorganisation Act 2019, no Bill or amendment shall be introduced in the Legislative Assembly without the recommendation of the Lieutenant Governor, if such a Bill deals with amendment of the law of any financial obligation taken or to be incurred by the legislature of the Union Territory, among other provision has had wide significance as virtually every policy decision may give rise to a financial obligation for the Union Territory. This has also raised points of conflict between the elected government and the amending the rules framed under the Reorganisation Act, the Center in 2024 had also vested more powers to the for taking decisions on police, officers of all-India services such as the IAS and the IPS, and giving sanction for prosecution in various MHA further said that all decisions regarding the appointment of advocate general and other law officers, besides matters related to the anti-corruption bureau, will also be taken by the Act also provides that the decision taken by the Lieutenant Governor in his discretion will be final and the validity of any action taken by the Lieutenant Governor will not be questioned on the grounds of whether he should have acted in his discretion or WILL CHANGE ONCE STATEHOOD IS RESTORED?All limitations on the power and authority of the elected government and legislature will be removed once statehood is the Reorganisation Act, the J&K Legislature has the power to pass laws on the subjects mentioned in the Concurrent list of the Constitution as well as on any subject in the State List 'except the subjects mentioned at entries 1 and 2, namely 'Public Order' and 'Police' respectively'Once statehood is restored to J&K, the power to control the police forces in the state and regulate 'public order'- would go back to the elected Assembly and the elected Government of the extensive discretion and powers granted to the LG, as the administrator representing the President, will also be removed, with the powers to control the police, law and order, transfer postings of bureaucrats and anti-corruption branches going back to the elected both the Solicitor General (in the Supreme Court) and the Union Home Minister (in Parliament) have clarified that Ladakh will remain a separate Union Territory even after J&K regains statehood.- Ends
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Maharashtra local body elections to be held in phases, after Diwali, says SEC
The much awaited local body elections in Maharashtra will be held in phases after Diwali, said State Election Commissioner Dinesh Waghmare on Tuesday. Speaking to reporters in Nashik after taking a review of the poll preparedness in north Maharashtra, Waghmare also said VVPAT machines will not be used in the polls, a decision over which the Opposition has already raised questions. Waghmare said, 'The election process for the local bodies will begin post-Diwali. I am not announcing the dates but the process will begin by October end. There is a major human resource constraint on holding all elections together. Therefore, the elections will be in a phased manner.' Recalling that the Supreme Court has directed to hold the elections within four months, he said, 'The elections will be conducted based on voters' list finalised on July 1, 2025.' In Maharashtra, the local body polls will be nothing less than mini-assembly polls. In urban areas, out of 29 municipal corporations (Jalna and Ichalkaranji newly formed), all are now run by administrators, without an elected body. The state has a 248 municipal councils — all with administrators. Out of 147 nagar panchayats, newly formed ones are 42, where elections will be held. In rural Maharashtra, out of 34 zilla parishads, 32 have administrators, except for Bhandara and Gondia whose term will end in May 2027. In case of 351 panchayat samitis, 336 have administrators where elections will be held. Without announcing the sequence, Waghmare said, 'The entire process will be over by December end or mid-January 2026.' The SEC also mentioned that around 8,705 control units and more than 17,000 voting machines will be required. 'The VVPATs will not be used in the upcoming polls,' he said. While the Opposition questioned the move, sources within the State Election Commission said that VVPATs are never used in local body polls. 'The only time when VVPATs were used on an experimental basis was in two wards in the last election for Nanded Municipal Corporation,' said an official from the Commission. Opposition Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sushma Andhare said that the decision raises questions over the transparency of the electoral process. A day before, the Supreme Court cleared the path for local body polls by upholding 27 per cent reservation for OBCs. Waghmare said that while the reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribe is fixed, a lottery method like the previous elections will be followed for the OBC reservation.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC upholds environment ministry notification, junks exemption clause for big projects
New Delhi, Aug 5 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the January 29 notification of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, but struck down the contentious clause exempting certain large building and construction projects from prior environmental clearance. The Supreme Court order said it would not be possible for the union ministry to consider projects across the country and therefore the issue could be considered on a state-to-state basis(Vipin Kumar/Hindustan Times) A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran held projects with a built-up area above 20,000 square meter, whether industrial, educational, or otherwise, cannot be exempted from the environment impact assessment (EIA) 2006 regime. The court clarified that the notification would also apply to Kerala. Dictating the order, the CJI said, 'It has been consistently held that natural resources are to be held in trust for the next generation. At the same time, courts have always taken note of development activities and the country cannot progress without it.' Observing the apex court had always focused on sustainable development, the CJI said, 'The court while ensuring that development is permitted has also required precaution to be taken so that least damage is caused to the environment and has even ordered costs to be paid for such development activities.' Also Read: Over 70,000 housing units stalled across MMR amid green clearance hurdle The order said it would not be possible for the union ministry to consider projects across the country and therefore the issue could be considered on a state-to-state basis. 'If any construction activity in any area more than 20,000 sq km is carried out it will have environmental impact even if it's for industrial or educational purposes and discrimination cannot be made with similar such institutes,' it said. It also said that no exemption can be granted to the education sector in this regard. Also Read: Mumbai sees redevelopment projects worth ₹18,000 crore amid signs of softening sales: Here's what you need to know 'Nowadays education has also become a flourishing industry and thus no reason to exempt such projects from the 2006 notification,' the CJI said. The bench upheld the notification except clause 8 of the January 29 notification which grants exemptions to industrial sheds, schools, colleges, and hostels with built-up areas up to 150,000 square meter. The bench said it was impractical for the MoEFCC to appraise every project nationwide, noting the Central Expert Appraisal Committee (CEA) could handle state-wise evaluations. On February 25, the top court stayed the notification on a PIL filed by Mumbai-based NGO Vanashakti, which argued that the exemption diluted the EIA's safeguards and threatened eco-sensitive zones. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the NGO, said similar attempts in 2014, 2016, and 2018 had been struck down or stayed by courts, including the Kerala High Court, the National Green Tribunal, and the Delhi High Court. The petition claimed that bypassing EC for projects of such magnitude, exceeding 1.6 million square feet, would cause irreversible damage to land, water, and air quality, violating the precautionary principle entrenched in Indian environmental law. Also Read: Over 25,000 buildings in Mumbai Metropolitan Region eligible for redevelopment with ₹30,000 cr value: CREDAI-MCHI Before the January 29 amendment, EIA 2006 required EC for all construction projects above 20,000 sq m The impugned notification raised the threshold to 150,000 sq m for certain categories and also removed 'general conditions' applicable in eco-sensitive and polluted areas. A follow-up office memorandum on January 30 expanded the scope of exemptions to include private universities, warehouses, and industrial sheds housing machinery or raw material.
