Supreme Court Deletes Stay On Telangana HC Order Quashing Nomination Of 2 MLCs

The Supreme Court today modified its earlier interim order in the dispute over two Telangana Legislative Council nominations under the Governor's quota, deleting the stay on the High Court judgment that had quashed the nominations of Prof. M Kodanda Rama Reddy and Amer Ali Khan.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said the August 14, 2024 order, passed in pleas by BRS leaders whose names were rejected by the Governor in 2023, had been a mistake.

Justice Nath clarified that the intention was to make any future nominations subject to the final outcome, not to stay the High Court ruling that had set aside earlier recommendations.

The Court ordered that the sentence “Till further orders, the impugned judgment of the High Court remain stayed” be deleted from the August 14 order. It clarified that “any fresh nomination that may be made for filling of the two seats of MLCs henceforth shall remain subject to the final outcome of the petition.”

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar submitted that Prof. Kodanda Rama and Amer Ali, recommended by the Congress government in 2024, took oath as MLCs taking advantage of the stay. Justice Nath remarked that any action taken pursuant to the August 14 order “shall stand annulled” and said the two “will have to reroute their entry” through fresh recommendations.

The matter arose from recommendations made in 2023 by the then K Chandrashekar Rao-led BRS government to nominate party leaders Dasoju Sravan Kumar and Kurra Satyanarayana as MLCs. On September 19, 2023, the Governor rejected these names, saying politically aligned persons should not be nominated.

In January 2024, after the Congress came to power under Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, the State Cabinet recommended Prof. M Kodanda Rama Reddy and Amer Ali Khan. The Governor accepted this recommendation and appointed them on January 27, 2024.

The BRS nominees challenged the rejection on their names before the High Court. In March 2024, the High Court quashed both the Governor's rejection of the BRS nominees and the subsequent appointment of Prof. Kodanda Rama and Amer Ali.

The court held that the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in such matters, though the Governor may examine eligibility or disqualification issues and seek reconsideration by the Cabinet. The court directed the Governor to consider fresh nominations.

BRS leaders Dasoju and Kurra approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court judgment to the extent it refused to direct the consideration of their nominations.

On August 14, 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court's decision and said the nominations would be subject to the outcome of the case. Following this, Prof. Kodanda Rama and Amer Ali took oath as MLCs.

During the hearing today, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani submitted that the petitioners were not seeking enforcement of their own recommendations but were challenging their rejection. They had sought a declaration from the High Court that the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers.

“They say that the Governor should act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Now the new government came and the Governor acted with the aid and advice. I accepted it. Now they have a problem,” he added.

The AGI argued that the High Court need not have examined the 2024 nominations, as the petitioners had already given up their earlier recommendations. “Because they gave up the recommendations. Now where is the question of saying that in the future if some nomination is made that should be set aside?” he asked, adding, “I am not in favour of any particular candidate. But the nomination can be quashed only if there is something wrong with the nomination or the recommendation.”

Justice Nath questioned why the 2024 nominations were accepted but the 2023 nominations were rejected. He asked, “Can you pick and choose?” The AGI replied, “There is no pick and choose.” He added that the High Court should have confined itself to declaring that the Governor is bound by Cabinet advice and need not have touched upon the subsequent nominations.

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar for the petitioners pointed out that the Governor had taken the stand before the High Court that as per Article 361 of the Constitution he was not answerable to the High Court. “Very unfortunate,” remarked the bench. The AGI responded, “Nothing is unfortunate. The Governor has acted entirely on the Council of Ministers' advice.”

Justice Nath told the AGI, “I have understood your argument. We will hear you. But this is a mistake on our part while passing the interim order. What I intended was that any fresh nomination the cabinet will make now that will be subject to the outcome of this petition. Not that the previous recommendations which were set aside will be...”

Advocates for Prof. Kodanda Rama and Amer Ali submitted that they had already taken oath and were attending the Council. Justice Nath said, “Any action taken subsequently to the interim order shall stand annulled…They will have to reroute their entry. Let it be recommended again.”

When it was argued that there could not be a vacuum, Justice Nath replied, “There was a vacuum when the petitioners' names were rejected.” The Counsel for the INC nominees highlighted that petitioner Dasoju had been elected by MLAs as an MLC. He requested that the Court say that the INC nominees could be renominated. Justice Nath declined, “We can't say that. Any fresh nomination can be made.”

Justice Mehta observed that the two nominees “have no right. They did not challenge the High Court judgment. They just got the benefit because there was some mistake by the court.”

Case no. – C.A. No. 014172 - 014173 / 2024

Case Title – Dr. Dasoju Sravan Kumar v. Secretary To Her Excellency, The Hon'ble Governor, State of Telangana

Appearance: Senior advocates Ranjit Kumar along with Aditya Sondhi for petitioner