As per case facts, petitioners filed disqualification petitions against a BRS MLA (Respondent No.2) who, despite being elected from the BRS party, subsequently filed his nomination as a candidate for ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
* THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.8409 and 8647 of 2026
(CNR Nos.HBHC010175042026 and HBHC010179012026)
% Dated: 18.09.2026
# Alleti Maheshwar Reddy and another
…Petitioners
vs.
$ The Hon’ble Speaker-cum-Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule
to the Constitution of India, Telangana Legislative Assembly
at Hyderabad, Telangana, Presided by the Speaker, and another.
…Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.8409 of 2026:
Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Vivek Reddy,
representing Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh
! Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.8647 of 2026:
Learned Senior Counsel Sri Gandra Mohan Rao,
representing Sri S.Santosh Kumar
^ Counsel for respondent No.1 in W.P.Nos.8409 and 8647 of 2026:
Sri A.Tulsi Raj Gokul
^ Counsel for respondent No.2 in W.P.No.8409 of 2026:
Learned Senior Counsel Sri A.Venkatesh,
representing Sri K.V.Rusheek Reddy
^ Counsel for respondent No.2 in W.P.No.8647 of 2026:
Learned Senior Counsel Sri Gourav Agrawal,
representing Sri K.V.Rusheek Reddy
< Gist:
> Head Note:
2
? Cases referred
1. 2025 INSC 912
2. 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651
3. (2020) 2 SCC 595
4. (2004) 8 SCC 747
5. 2019 (5) ALT 241 (DB) (TS)
6. 2009 (3) ALT 324 (DB)
7. (2006) 11 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 1375
8. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 641
9. (2024) 2 SCC 719
10. (2020) 20 SCC 209
11. 2025 INSC 201
12. (2020) 1 SCC 1
13. (1996) 2 SCC 353
14. (2009) 9 SCC 310
15. (2000) 8 SCC 191
16. 2013 (2) ALT 310 (DB)
17. (2007) 4 SCC 270
18. (2013) 11 SCC 794
19. AIR 1965 SC 1892
20. (2016) 8 SCC 1
21. (2009) 10 SCC 170
22. (1969) 3 SCC 238
23. (1988) 3 SCC 319
3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT PETITION Nos.8409 and 8647 of 2026
(CNR Nos.HBHC010175042026 and HBHC010179012026)
Dated: 18.09.2026
Reserved on: 21.08.2026 Pronounced on: 18.09.2026
Uploaded on : 18.09.2026
WRIT PETITION No.8409 of 2026
Between:
Alleti Maheshwar Reddy
…Petitioner
and
The Hon’ble Speaker-cum-Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule
to the Constitution of India, Telangana Legislative Assembly
at Hyderabad, Telangana, Presided by the Speaker and another.
…Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.8647 of 2026
Between:
Mr. Padi Kaushik Reddy
…Petitioner
and
The Hon’ble Speaker-cum-Tribunal under the Tenth Schedule
to the Constitution of India, Telangana Legislative Assembly,
Hyderabad and another
…Respondents
4
COMMON ORDER :
(Per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh)
Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Vivek Reddy, representing learned
counsel Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh appears for the petitioner in
W.P.No.8409 of 2026.
Learned Senior Counsel Sri Gandra Mohan Rao, representing
learned counsel Sri S.Santosh Kumar, appears for the petitioner in
W.P.No.8647 of 2026.
Learned counsel Sri A.Tulsi Raj Gokul appears for respondent
No.1 in W.P.Nos.8409 and 8647 of 2026.
Learned Senior Counsel Sri A.Venkatesh, representing learned
counsel Sri K.V.Rusheek Reddy, appears for respondent No.2 in
W.P.No.8409 of 2026.
Learned Senior Counsel Sri Gourav Agrawal, representing
learned counsel Sri K.V.Rusheek Reddy, appears for respondent No.2 in
W.P.No.8647 of 2026.
2. The decision of the Hon’ble Speaker-cum-Tribunal under the
Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India, Telangana Legislative
Assembly at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Hon’ble
Speaker’), passed in Disqualification Petition Nos.4 of 2024 and 1 of
2024, dated 11.03.2026 is the subject matter of these writ petitions.
5
Facts in W.P.No.8409 of 2026:
3. W.P.No.8409 of 2026 has been preferred by an elected Member
of the Telangana Legislative Assembly (MLA) from a political party –
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The Hon’ble Speaker by the impugned
order 11.03.2026 has dismissed the Disqualification Petition No.4 of
2024 filed by the petitioner on 01.07.2024 seeking a declaration that the
respondent No.2 is disqualified from continuing as a Bharat Rashtra
Samithi (BRS) party MLA. The relevant facts pleaded and borne from
record are as under:
4. In December, 2023, respondent No.2 was elected as an MLA
representing BRS party from 60-Khairatabad Constituency. In the said
election, he has contested against the candidate nominated by the Indian
National Congress (INC) party. On 23.04.2024, respondent No.2 filed
his nomination as a candidate set up by the INC party for the 2024 Lok
Sabha elections, 08-Secunderabad Parliament Constituency. Respondent
No.2 campaigned against the BRS party candidate from the
Secunderabad Constituency and ultimately he lost the 2024 Lok Sabha
elections. The petitioner, therefore filed the Disqualification Petition
before the Hon’ble Speaker on 01.07.2024 seeking a declaration that
respondent No.2 was disqualified from continuing as a BRS party MLA
as he has voluntarily given up his membership of the BRS party by
6
contesting in the Parliamentary elections against the BRS party and on
behalf of the INC party. There was extensive delay in disposing of the
disqualification petition. Finally on 31.07.2025, vide judgment in Civil
Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2353-54 of 2025, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court directed the Hon’ble Speaker to decide the
disqualification petition within three months (Padi Kaushik Reddy vs.
the State of Telangana
1
). On 11.03.2026, the Hon’ble Speaker
dismissed the disqualification petition. The same has been made subject
matter of challenge on 17.03.2026.
Submissions of learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Vivek Reddy,
representing learned counsel Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh, appearing
for the petitioner in W.P.No.8409 of 2026:
5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Speaker has
opined that disqualification petition has to be based on the conduct
within the House. The Speaker’s jurisdiction under the Tenth Schedule
is confined to the conduct within the House. The conduct outside the
House is only relevant if such conduct destabilises BRS’s strength or
functioning in the House. That respondent No.2’s conduct of
contesting elections from a different party did not amount to voluntarily
giving up BRS membership under the Tenth Schedule. That respondent
No.2 continued to be a BRS member because respondent No.2 never
1
2025 INSC 912
7
formally resigned from the BRS and did not enrol as a member of the
INC party. He continued to sit with the BRS party and complied with
BRS whips and has faced no disciplinary action and BRS party has
condoned his conduct. That the documents relied upon by the petitioner
were hearsay as they were not certified copies or proved by witnesses
and there was no evidence that respondent No.2 gave up BRS
membership. The petitioner did not comply with the mandatory
verification requirements under Rule 6 of the Members of Telangana
Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules,
1986 (hereinafter referred to as, “the 1986 Rules”) and hence
disqualification petition was dismissed.
6. On behalf of the petitioners, the following propositions have been
raised:
(a) The impugned order ought to be reviewed for (i) breach of
constitutional mandate; (ii) legal mala fides and (iii) perversity. The
impugned order is amenable to review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The decisions in Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu
2
,
Padi Kaushik Reddy (supra) and Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs.
Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly
3
have been relied upon in
support of the said proposition.
2
1992 Supp (2) SCC 651
3
(2020) 2 SCC 595
8
(b) That contesting elections from a different party amounts to
voluntarily giving up membership. It is well settled that contesting
parliamentary elections on another party’s ticket amounts to voluntarily
giving up membership under para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule. The
decisions in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh vs. Chairman, Bihar
Legislative Council
4
and R.Bhoopathi Reddy vs. Chairman,
Telangana State Legislative Council, Hyderabad
5
have been relied
upon in support of the said propositions.
(c) Once respondent No.2 was set up as a candidate by the INC
party, he was deemed to be a member of the INC party. In support of the
said proposition, reliance is placed on the decisions in Mandadi
Satyanarayana Reddy vs. A.P.Legislative Assembly
6
and Jagjit
Singh vs. State of Haryana
7
.
(d) That a formal resignation from BRS party is not the
requirement to trigger the disqualification. In this regard, he relies upon
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi S. Naik v. Union of
India
8
.
(e) It is further submitted that the enquiry under para 2(1)(a) is
limited to whether respondent No.2 voluntarily gave up BRS
4
(2004) 8 SCC 747
5
2019 (5) ALT 241 (DB) (TS)
6
2009 (3) ALT 324 (DB)
7
(2006) 11 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 1375
8
1994 Supp (2) SCC 641
9
membership. In view of respondent No.2’s admission, no further
evidence is required. That respondent No.2 has not denied the facts
necessary for the present enquiry on defection. In 2023, respondent No.2
was elected as an MLA from BRS party. On 23.04.2024, respondent
No.2 filed his nomination for Lok Sabha elections from INC party
despite being an elected BRS member. Therefore, respondent No.2 was
set up as an INC party candidate in 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
(f) Since this factual position establishes disqualification, the
Hon’ble Speaker is under duty to decide to that effect. He has once
again referred to the case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra)
(para 7 and 16). Moreover, when facts are admitted, no further evidence
is required. That admission is the best evidence. He has placed reliance
on Jagjit Singh (supra) (para 48) and Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh
(supra) (para 19)).
(g) That once disqualification is triggered, no subsequent acts of
the Member or Party can undo it. It is settled law that disqualification
relates back to the date of defection. Respondent No.2 stood disqualified
on 23.04.2024 once he filed his nomination for Lok Sabha elections
from a different party. He has referred to Subhash Desai vs. State of
10
Maharashtra
9
(paras 209 and 210) and Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil
(supra) (para 93).
(h) That the Hon’ble Speaker erred in considering the subsequent
facts such as payment of fees by respondent No.2, compliance with BRS
whips and no disciplinary action by BRS.
(i) That taking extraneous facts into account amounts to legal
mala fides. He has relied upon Ramjit Singh Kardam vs. Sanjeev
Kumar
10
(para 68) and Dr. Amaragouda L Patil vs. Union of India
11
(paras 52 to 56).
(j) That once disqualification applies, the Hon’ble Speaker is
under a duty to carry out the mandate of the Tenth Schedule. The
legislative objective of para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule is to prevent
defection by elected members from the party which had set him up.
Reliance is placed on para 13 of Kihoto Hollohan (supra).
(k) That even if the petitioner withdrew the disqualification
petition, the Hon’ble Speaker must carry out the mandate of the Tenth
Schedule. There is no discretion conferred on the Hon’ble Speaker to
decide otherwise.
(l) That the 1986 Rules are directory in nature and cannot be
strictly read to defeat the Tenth Schedule. The Hon’ble Speaker erred in
9
(2024) 2 SCC 719
10
(2020) 20 SCC 209
11
2025 INSC 201
11
holding that the petitioner violated the rules for verification of pleadings.
The petitioner relied on the official/public documents which are
presumed to be genuine. Reference is made to Sections 80 and 81 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) and to M. Siddiq vs.
Suresh Das
12
in this regard.
(m) That without prejudice to the above, procedural rules cannot
render the disqualification petition invalid or affect the duty of the
Hon’ble Speaker to carry out the enquiry on disqualification as held in
Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) (para 16).
(n) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
findings rendered by the Hon’ble Speaker on each of the four issues
framed by him and assailed them on the grounds of breach of
constitutional obligations and perversity. The Hon’ble Speaker has
taken into account the findings which are totally alien to the scheme of
disqualification. The purpose of para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule is to
see that the voter elected candidate of one party has to be a part of that
party. Para 2(1)(b) of the Tenth Schedule comes into play for conduct
of a member of any party within the House by voting or abstaining
from voting contrary to any direction issued by the political party to
which he belongs. The petitioner’s case rests primarily on the alleged
acts of respondent No.2 being set up as INC party candidate of
12
(2020) 1 SCC 1
12
Secunderabad Lok Sabha Constituency and filing nomination papers
and actively campaigning for the INC party in Lok Sabha elections.
The evidence produced by the petitioner includes a Gazette Notification
issued by the Election Commission of India wherein respondent No.2
appears at Sl.No.60 showing his party affiliation as BRS and Form 26
filed by respondent No.2 during 2024 Lok Sabha elections showing that
he was declared as a candidate set up by the INC party. He was
contesting against the BRS party candidate, thereby changing his
affiliation. The finding of the Hon’ble Speaker that the BRS party has
continued to treat him as a Member of the House and thereby condoned
his conduct is something beyond the records - either of the evidence of
respondent No.2 or that of the petitioner in this case. It, therefore,
amounts to perversity. Once a Member has incurred disqualification
under para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule, the action cannot be
condoned. The issue of condonation comes only under para 2(1)(b) of
the Tenth Schedule when the political party gives a whip and the
candidate disobeys and votes in a different manner. The candidate can
be disqualified if within 15 days that political party condones it.
(o) The Hon’ble Speaker has committed an error in asking the
petitioner to prove the facts which have not been denied. It is the first
principle of evidence that the petitioner has to prove facts which have
13
been denied by the other side. Respondent No.2 has admitted that he
contested the Assembly elections from BRS party and contested the Lok
Sabha elections from the INC party and campaigned against BRS party.
None of the exhibits have been denied by respondent No.2 either before
the Hon’ble Speaker or before this Court.
(p) In respect of the final finding of the Hon’ble Speaker that the
petitioner has not complied with mandatory procedural requirements
under the 1986 Rules, it is submitted that the Hon’ble Speaker passed
similar order in the other disqualification petitions also which have been
copied and pasted in the petitioner’s case, whereas the petitioner has
relied upon the Gazette Notification and not on the news reports.
Submissions of learned Senior Counsel Sri Gandra Mohan Rao,
representing learned counsel Sri S.Santosh Kumar, appearing for
the petitioner in W.P.No.8647 of 2026:
7. (a) Learned Senior Counsel has referred to the facts mentioned in
the writ affidavit and submitted that the Hon’ble Speaker opined that the
acts allegedly committed by respondent No.2 are outside the Assembly.
Therefore, he lacks jurisdiction. The five points for determination were
framed by the Hon’ble Speaker after the arguments were concluded.
Respondent No.2 deserted the BRS party and joined the INC party in the
presence of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Media on 15.03.2024.
He has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the judgment
14
dated 31.07.2025 directing him to decide the matter within three months.
The Hon’ble Speaker deferred the decision for eight months till the
impugned order was passed. The Hon’ble Speaker had issued notices to
the defected MLAs on 16.01.2025. Before filing of counter affidavits,
all the defected MLAs had a meeting with the Hon’ble Chief Minister
including respondent No.2. On 24.12.2025, respondent No.2 gave a
statement that he still remains in INC party. On 26.12.2025 also, he gave
a statement in ABN news channel that he still remains in INC party.
Respondent No.2 filed the counter affidavit only on 19.01.2026 after six
months of the direction by the Apex Court. Rejoinder to that was filed
on 29.01.2026. Evidence in chief of the petitioner was also filed on
29.01.2026. The petitioner was cross-examined by learned counsel for
respondent No.2 on 18.02.2026. Oral arguments were held on
07.03.2026. Respondent No.2 did not choose to file any documents.
(b) The documents filed by the petitioner in Chief Affidavit were
marked as Exs.P.1 to P.30, which are as under:
Sl.No. Date Description of document Ex.No.
1. 06.11.2023 Copy of Form 26 of the respondent No.2 P1
2. 04.12.2023 Copy of Gazette Notification No.44 declaring the list
of elected candidates
P2
3. 15.03.2024 Copy of Photograph of the respondent No.2 and met
with AICC Incharge deep Das Munshi along with
Mallu Batti Vikramarka and Telangana Pradesh
Congress Committee President Sri A.Revanth Reddy
(original Newspapers filed along with DP)
P3
4. Copy of the Photograph of respondent No.2 joining in
the Indian National Congress Party
P4
5. 21.03.2024 INC Party list of candidates selected for Lok Sabha
Elections in which Sl.No.46 reflects name of Danam
Nagender
P5
6. 24.04.2024 Copy of the Form 26 – Affidavit filed by the P6
15
respondent No.2 for Lok Sabha Election
7. Copy of the result sheet uploaded in Election
Commission of India Website
P7
8. 31.07.2025 Copy of Judgment in SLP (C) No.2353-54 of 2025 of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court
P8
9. 27.01.2026 Copy of Notice served on petitioner vide
Lr.No.199/Legn./2024-14
P9
10. 05.05.2024 Facebook Page posts of Election Campaign by
respondent No.2 for Secunderabad Parliamentary
Constituency
P10
11. 16.10.2024 Facebook Post of respondent No.2 who attended INC
Party Meeting at Gandhi Bhavan
P11
12. 18.09.2024 Facebook Page Post of respondent No.2 who attended
a protest call organized by INC party
P12
13. 11.05.2024 Facebook Page post of respondent No.2 who
organized bike rally
P13
14. 06.05.2024 Facebook Page post of respondent No.2 who
campaigned with Mohd. Azaruddin in Secunderabad
Parliament Constituency
P14
15. 06.05.2024 Respondent No.2 giving a press statement to Amma
Youtube Channel to vote in his favour in
Secunderabad Parliamentary Constituency
P15
16. 28.04.2024 Respondent No.2 giving a press statement to TV5
News Channel to vote in his favour within the
Secunderabad Parliamentary Constituency
P16
17. 03.05.2024 Respondent No.2 giving a press statement to TV9
News Channel to vote in his favour within the
Secunderabad Parliamentary Constituency
P17
18. 24.04.2024 Respondent No.2 giving a press statement to 10 TV
News Channel to vote in his favour within the
Secunderabad Parliamentary Constituency
P18
19. 24.12.2025 Respondent No.2 giving a press statement to TV5
News Channel that he still remains in INC Party
P19
20. 24.12.2025 Respondent No.2 giving a press statement to Sakshi
TV News Channel stating that he will ensure the
Congress Party wins in the GHMC election
P20
21. 26.12.2025 Respondent No.2 giving a press statement to ABN
News Channel that he still remains in INC Party
P21
22. 05.05.2024 Facebook Post of respondent No.2 who attended Road
Show at Seethaphalmandi to Musheerabad
P22
23. 06.05.2024 Facebook Post of respondent No.2 who posted a
Photo of Model Ballot Paper showing Hand Symbol
to vote in favour of him on the Polling Date which
was scheduled on 13.05.2024
P23
24. 07.05.2024 Facebook Post of respondent No.2 participated in
Road Show at Abids along with Komati Reddy
Venkat Reddy and other congress party leaders and
requested all the voters to vote in his favour
P24
25. 22.03.2024 Respondent No.2 in his official X page shared a
photograph expressing his gratitude for giving the
opportunity to contest as Member of Parliament from
Secunderabad Parliamentary Constituency
P25
26. 19.10.2024 Facebook Post of respondent No.2 who had
participated in the INC Party Meeting which is named
as Rajiv Gandhi Sadbhavana Yatra held at Charminar
in which respondent No.2 was wearing Indian
National Congress Party scarf
P26
27. 06.11.2024 Facebook Post of respondent No.2 wearing INC Party
Scarf and holding the flag of INC Party went to
Begumpet Airport to welcome Sri Rahul Gandhi,
P27
16
AICC Member
28. 17.08.2025 Copy of Video footage of Sri Mahesh Kumar Goud,
President TPCC in TV as well as ANI Media Channel
P28
29. 26.03.2025 Copy of Article published in print media – statement
made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister Sri A.Revanth
Reddy during Assembly Sessions
P29
30. 07.09.2025 Copy of Article published in Print and Electronic
Media in relation to the defected MLAs meeting
Hon’ble Chief Minister Sri A.Revanth Reddy at his
residence on account of notices issued by the Hon’ble
Speaker
P30
(c) It is submitted that since the Hon’ble Speaker was not fixing
any time schedule as is mandated under law for deciding the
disqualification petition, W.P.Nos.9472, 11098 and 1853 of 2024 were
filed. By judgment dated 09.09.2024, the learned Single Judge directed
the Secretary, Telangana Legislative Assembly to place the
disqualification petitions before the Hon’ble Speaker for fixing a
schedule within a period of four weeks. However, assailing the said
judgment, the Secretary, Telangana Legislative Assembly filed
W.A.Nos.1157, 1158 and 1160 of 2024. By common judgment dated
22.11.2024, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside.
However, the learned Division Bench directed the Hon’ble Speaker to
decide the petitions filed by the writ petitioners within a reasonable time
taking into account the pendency of such petitions, the object of
inclusion of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India as well as
the tenure of the Assembly. Since nothing moved thereafter, the
petitioners and also BRS party moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
SLPs against the judgment of the learned Division Bench. By judgment
17
dated 31.07.2025 in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2353-54 of
2025, the Apex Court observed that there was no occasion for the
Secretary of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to challenge the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in as much as nothing adverse could
be found in the said order. The Apex Court directed the Hon’ble Speaker
to decide the disqualification petitions within three months. The
respondent No.2 filed his counter affidavit after six months only on
19.01.2026 taking a plea that the petitioner has drawn certain
assumptions based upon newspaper and media reports to conclude that
respondent No.2 has voluntarily given up his membership of BRS. That
he had not tendered his resignation as a member of BRS party and he
has not been intimated about any expulsion from the BRS party.
Respondent No.2 stated that he had only attended a courtesy meeting in
his personal capacity with the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 15.03.2024
which cannot be construed as an act of disqualification and giving up
membership of BRS. Reliance on speculative newspaper reports and
media clippings has no evidentiary value.
(d) Respondent No.2 has clearly admitted that he met the Hon’ble
Chief Minister on 15.03.2024 and also the draping of Kanduva which is
an INC party Kanduva. However, respondent No.2 has taken a stand that
it is a traditional way of welcoming persons by placing Kanduvas on
18
their shoulders. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterates that
respondent No.2 has not denied that his name was included in the INC
party list which is a proof of voluntarily giving up his membership of
BRS party within the meaning of para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule.
(e) The contention of respondent No.2 that the fundamental right
to contest the elections cannot be termed as defection inviting
disqualification is untenable in law. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the findings of the Hon’ble Speaker that
the acts relied upon by the petitioner are fundamentally different from
the acts that have a direct bearing on the proceedings, majority, or
stability of the Telangana Legislative Assembly. Contesting the Lok
Sabha elections has no impact on the Assembly proceedings, is
untenable in law. The disqualification proceedings are applicable not
only to the Members of the Legislative Assemblies but the Members of
Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and Members of Legislative Councils,
though the Government is not formed based on the strength of the Rajya
Sabha or the Legislative Council. Even when an independent candidate
joins any political party after being elected independently, he is liable
for disqualification.
(f) Learned Senior Counsel has explained the interpretation
clause at para 1 of the Tenth Schedule, where the words ‘House’,
19
‘Legislature Party’, ‘Original Political Party’ and ‘Paragraph’
respectively are defined. He further sought to elucidate the distinction
between the application of para 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b) on the question of
disqualification of a Member of the House. He submits that the
philosophy of anti-defection law is based on morals, principles and
standards of society. A candidate is elected from a particular political
party based on the programme announced by the said party on
manifesto, such trust cannot be defied by a candidate by joining another
party. A duty has been entrusted upon the Hon’ble Speaker under
Article 191(2) read with the Tenth Schedule as a presiding officer of the
House to decide the disqualification petition due to defection. There is a
duty cast on the Hon’ble Speaker to see that the constitutional mandate
is not frustrated. He has also referred to the decision in Kihoto
Hollohan (supra) (paras 4, 9, 10, 11, 14, 24(A), 30, 42, 44, 47, 49, 52,
53, 113, 114, 118, 119, 181, 182). He submits that the Hon’ble Speaker
has not even referred to the decision in R.Bhoopathi Reddy (supra)
cited on behalf of the petitioner.
(g) He submits that five points were framed by the Hon’ble
Speaker for his decision. Point Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are common in both the
writ petitions. Point No.4 deals with ‘What is the legal effect of BRS
Party’s silence, continued official recognition of the respondent No.2 as
20
a BRS member, and the absence of any internal disciplinary action
against the respondent No.2’. It is not in dispute that no disciplinary
action or show cause notice was issued to respondent No.2 by the BRS
party. The BRS party has not communicated to the Hon’ble Speaker’s
office that respondent No.2 has ceased to be its member or the party
disowns him as required under Rules 3(4) of the 1986 Rules. The
Hon’ble Speaker held that this institutional silence and continued
recognition carries decisive weight. The anti-defection law is designed
to protect the party’s legislative mandate. When the BRS party and its
leadership continued to treat respondent No.2 as its member, it would be
anomaly for the party MLA to obtain declaration that respondent No.2
has defected from the party. He submits that the findings of the Hon’ble
Speaker on point No.4 are untenable in law. He submits that the
question of condonation of the acts of the member to vote or abstains
from voting contrary to the directions issued by the political party is
applicable under para 2(1)(b) of the Tenth Schedule. He also referred to
various provisions of the 1986 Rules, specifically to Rule 2(g) which
defines ‘member’ and Rule 3, which requires a leader of its legislative
party to submit within thirty days after the first sitting of the House or
where such legislature party is found after the first sitting, a statement in
writing containing the names of the members of such legislature party
21
together with other particulars regarding such members in Form-I. As
per sub-rule (4) of Rule 3, whenever any change takes place in the
information furnished by the leader of the legislature party, he shall
within thirty days thereafter or within such further period as the Hon’ble
Speaker may for sufficient cause allow, furnish in writing information in
the Hon’ble Speaker with respect to such change. He also refers to sub-
rule (6) of Rule 3, wherein in cases of voting or abstention, the
legislature party has to furnish information to the Hon’ble Speaker in
Form-II whether such voting or abstention has or has not been condoned
by such political party, person or authority. He has also referred to Rule
6 which provides for filing of petition in relation to a member if he has
violated the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. It provides for
the procedure for filing of such petitions. Rule 6(6) provides that every
petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid
down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for the verification of
pleadings. He submits that once the petition has been received by the
Hon’ble Speaker and is satisfied that the petition complies with the
Rules, he should forward the petition to the Member in relation to whom
the petition has been filed within seven days to give his comments in
writing to the Hon’ble Speaker. After considering his comments, the
Hon’ble Speaker may either proceed to determine the question or if he is
22
satisfied refer the petition to the Committee for making the preliminary
enquiry and submitting a report to him. In this case, the petition was
filed on 18.03.2024 and a notice was given only on 16.01.2025. A
counter affidavit has been filed on 19.01.2026 when the Rule
contemplates giving of seven days time originally. This shows the
biased attitude of the Hon’ble Speaker. He submits that neither the
Evidence Act nor the CPC is applicable to the proceedings before the
Hon’ble Speaker who has to carry out the constitutional mandate. He
has referred to the decision of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra).
(h) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the
present case a petition was filed along with an affidavit at the end of it
though verification was not done as required by CPC. The Hon’ble
Speaker, however, accepted the petition and issued notice. Therefore,
once the Hon’ble Speaker is satisfied that the petition complies with the
requirement of the 1986 Rules and has issued notice, the plea of not
verifying the petition does not arise. The Hon’ble Speaker cannot
dismiss the petition on the ground of defective filing of the petition. The
Hon’ble Speaker has to decide as per the substantive provisions of the
Tenth Schedule. He has referred to paras 7, 8, 11, 17, 18, 19 and 25 of
the decision in Ravi S. Naik (supra), G. Viswanathan vs. Hon'ble
23
Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Madras
13
(paras 5, 7, 11
to 15) and Jagjit Singh (supra) (paras 1, 2, 8, 14, 17, 24, 25, 29, 41, 42
and 44) and submitted that the respondent No.2 cannot escape from the
disqualification proceedings on general pleas and vague denials. He
submits that once a Member has gone to the Chief Minister’s residence
and was offered Kanduva of such political party, the only inference that
can be drawn is that he has voluntarily given up his political party and
no further enquiry or evidence is required. He has referred to the case of
R.Bhoopathi Reddy (supra) and G.Viswanathan (supra). Therefore,
the impugned decision is unsustainable in law.
Submissions of learned Senior Counsel Sri A.Venkatesh,
representing learned counsel Sri K.V.Rusheek Reddy, appearing for
respondent No.2 in W.P.No.8409 of 2026:
8. (a) Learned Senior Counsel Sri A.Venkatesh submits that the
anti-defection is there since the year 1985. The frame work and the
jurisprudence of this particular aspect has been started from 1992.
While recollecting the words of Abraham Lincoln that Government is
‘Of the People’, ‘By the People’ and ‘For the People’ till the earth
perishes, he submits that a Member of Legislative Assembly is elected
by the public. Therefore, while considering the defection, which entails
serious consequences, it should be seen that no injustice to the electorate
13
(1996) 2 SCC 353
24
is inflicted. The anti-defection law is to be applied on much stricter
standards than the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Therefore, in
appreciating the anti-defection law, the rigor should be much more
higher. The power of judicial review can be exercised over the
Speaker’s decision on four parameters as laid down in Kihoto Hollohan
(supra).
(b) Learned Senior Counsel submits that the present case is one
where judicial review should not be exercised over the Hon’ble
Speaker’s order. As per the Hon’ble Speaker’s decision, the candidates
have not incurred the disqualification.
(c) The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the petitioner
in his cross-examination has admitted that the petition was filed
without any verification. It is therefore in the teeth of paras 6 and 7 of
the 1986 Rules. He has relied upon the decision in Anil Vasudev
Salgaonkar vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar
14
(paras 44 to 63), which
prescribes the manner in which pleadings in an election petition has to
be framed. He also relies upon Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh
15
(paras 7 and 11) and on the requirement of verification in an election
petition. He submits that in disqualification petition the material facts
have to be strictly pleaded. He submits that the decision in
14
(2009) 9 SCC 310
15
(2000) 8 SCC 191
25
Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) is inapplicable as in that case
the verification was filed. He relies on Mandadi Satyanarayana
Reddy (supra) in order to contend that in the absence of verification,
the Hon’ble Court should dismiss the petition. He submits that none of
the four grounds for judicial review as per the decision in Kihoto
Hollohan (supra) at para 111 have been made out for interference by
this Court in judicial review. He submits that if the Hon’ble Speaker’s
decision is reasonable, it is not amenable to judicial review. He relies
on Jagjit Singh (supra) (para 14). He submits that the disqualification
petition of this nature is to be decided by the Hon’ble Speaker in
respect of the actions inside the House. If the act complained of is
outside the House, such as contesting election from another party, the
Hon’ble Speaker does not have jurisdiction. He submits that if the
contention of the petitioner is accepted, respondent No.2 would be
disqualified without any evidence. The electorate can be unfairly
deprived of representation through their elected member in such an
event. He submits that during cross-examination, no certified copy of
Exs.P.1 to P.4 was filed. He also refers to the answers given by the
petitioner during the cross-examination such as to question No.8. He
has referred to the findings of the Hon’ble Speaker in respect of point
Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4, at para 11.3 of the impugned order, in support of the
26
submission that the decision of the Hon’ble Speaker does not suffer
from any legal mala fides or perversity calling for interference by this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(d) Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Speaker has
relied on Article 191(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India to make
segregation that the conduct outside the House does not have direct
nexus with the conduct inside the House proceedings. Under Article
191(1) clauses (a) to (e), any person can lodge a complaint to the
Governor. It is the discretion of the Governor to decide the matter. He
submits that there is no complaint by the BRS party to whom
respondent No.2 belongs. Therefore, the conduct of respondent No.2
outside the House discussed in point No.2 of the impugned order has
been answered against the petitioner.
Submissions of learned Senior Counsel Sri Gourav Agrawal,
representing learned counsel Sri K.V.Rusheek Reddy, appearing for
respondent No.2 in W.P.No.8647 of 2026:
9. (a) Learned Senior Counsel Sri Gaurav Agrawal submits that the
averments made in the disqualification petition or the material placed
before the Hon’ble Speaker do not show as to whether respondent No.2
has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party from
which he was elected. If the political party on whose ticket respondent
No.2 got elected, does not directly or indirectly come forward and
27
substantiate the disqualification, it should not result in disqualification.
Only one member of the political party has come forward with the
disqualification petition. Therefore, the Hon’ble Speaker has observed
that there is no material before him to come to a conclusion that
respondent No.2 has voluntarily given up the membership. Therefore,
answer to point No.4 is justified.
(b) When the Constitution uses the word ‘voluntarily giving up
membership of a political party’, it is not mere resignation. If the
Hon’ble Speaker comes to a conclusion that the conduct of respondent
No.2 shows that he has given up membership of the political party, that
is sufficient reason to disqualify him. But the Hon’ble Speaker also has
to come to a conclusion as to the date on which respondent No.2 has
given up the membership of BRS. The materials placed before the
Hon’ble Speaker are insufficient, therefore, the disqualification petition
must fail.
(c) After notice received from the Hon’ble Speaker, respondent
No.2 filed his counter affidavit on 19.01.2026, in which, he has dealt
with the averments made in the disqualification petition.
(d) Reference is made to the complaint, which is the genesis of
the present proceeding i.e., the disqualification petition. It is alleged that
on 15.03.2024, respondent No.2 has met the present Chief Minister, All
28
India Congress Committee (AICC) In charge and Deputy Chief Minister
and again participated in a ceremony on 17.03.2024, where a tri-colour
scarf (Kanduva) was put around his neck, on the basis of which, the
petitioner avers that respondent No.2 has joined the INC party on
17.03.2024 and consequently given up the membership of the BRS
party. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 has joined the
INC party on 15.03.2024 and the Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2024
was filed on 18.03.2024. It is the allegation of the petitioner that on
21.03.2024, AICC released a list of its candidates for the Lok Sabha
Elections of 2024 and respondent No.2 was shown as their candidate
from Secunderabad division. On 30.03.2024, an additional affidavit was
filed by the petitioner in the same Disqualification Petition bringing this
subsequent development to the notice of the Speaker. It is to be noted
that petitioner did not chose to amend the disqualification petition at all.
This additional affidavit cannot be read as a pleading in disqualification
petition. On the basis of the averments made in the additional affidavit,
petitioner wants that respondent No.2 is disqualified on the ground that
he has contested the Lok Sabha elections as an INC candidate from
Secunderabad division.
(e) In his counter affidavit, respondent No.2 has taken a clear
stand that the allegation of meeting the Chief Minister is insufficient to
29
come to a conclusion that he has voluntarily given up the membership of
the political party.
(f) The only material in support thereof is Newspapers/Media
reports annexed to the disqualification petition. None of these materials
show that respondent No.2 made a statement that he has joined the INC
party on that date. Therefore, this material is insufficient to disqualify a
member of the House. He has referred to the list of documents, which
include the press release dated 21.03.2024, news clippings dated
22.03.2024, original newspapers dated 22.03.2024 and video clippings
of TV9 debate. Except the press release dated 21.03.2024, all other
material according to respondent No.2 are secondary evidence, which
the Hon’ble Speaker has rightly disregarded.
(g) Pages 490 to 494 of the writ petition are the list of documents
relied on by the petitioner. Annexure 1 dated 06.11.2023 is the copy of
BRS Form 26 affidavit; Annexure 2 is copy of the Gazette notification
declaring the list of elected candidates by the Election Commission;
Annexures 3 and 4 are copies of photographs of respondent No.2
meeting AICC In charge and others and joining in INC party and the
original newspapers filed along with the Disqualification Petition.
Annexure 5 is the list of the AICC candidates for the Lok Sabha
elections including Secunderabad division dated 21.03.2024; Annexures
30
6 and 7 are respondent No.2’s Form 26 affidavit dated 24.04.2024 and
result sheet which cannot be disputed. Annexure 8 is the judgment of the
Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.2353-54 of 2025 dated 31.07.2025
wherein a direction was issued to the Hon’ble Speaker to decide the
matter within three months. Annexure 9 are the notices dated 27.03.2021
and 27.01.2026 which are served on the petitioner. Annexures 10 to 14
are Facebook posts of the Election campaign dated 05.05.2024,
16.10.2024 and 18.09.2024. Annexures 15 to 21 are statements on
YouTube channel dated 16.05.2024 and press statements. Annexures 22
to 27 are Facebook posts of road shows, Annexure 28 is copy of video
footages in media channels. Annexures 29 and 30 are articles published
in print and electronic media. On these 30 documents the petitioner has
laid his case that respondent No.2 has defected on 15.03.2024. These
documents, according to respondent No.2, are totally inadmissible as
none of the persons, who were the authors of these documents, had been
examined. Therefore, the Hon’ble Speaker has rightly held that without
any veracity, genuineness and authenticity, he would not rely on media
reports, as they are mere inferences without any documents in support
thereof. Therefore, respondent No.2 has not given up the membership
of BRS. As there is no official membership certificate of the INC party
31
and there is no contribution to the INC party, there is nothing to show
that on 15.03.2024, respondent No.2 has joined the INC party.
(h) Learned Senior Counsel submits that in the cross
examination, the petitioner has given contradictory statements. On the
one hand, he stated that he filed the disqualification petition on oral
instructions of the Party President and on the other hand, he says that
being a Member of the House, he had filed the petition. There is no
material to show that the petitioner was authorised by the party to write
to the Hon’ble Speaker to take action against respondent No.2, as he has
voluntarily given up the membership of the political party.
(i) Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that it
is crucial in such cases to decide the date of disqualification. Petitioner
has alleged that respondent No.2 joined the INC party on 15.03.2024. In
answer to question No.8, the petitioner has stated in his cross
examination that respondent No.2 joined the INC party on 15.03.2024
based on the media reports and photographs which have been annexed
as exhibits. The petitioner further stated that he personally verified from
respondent No.2 who admitted that the list of INC candidates was
published on 21.03.2024. These materials are insufficient to decide that
the respondent No.2 defected on 15.03.2024. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that the tri-colour scarf (Kanduva) is given as a token of respect.
32
In this Kanduva, the green colour is on top and orange colour is below.
The Hon’ble Speaker has therefore held that wearing tri-colour scarf
(Kanduva) would not amount to an inference that respondent No.2 had
joined the INC party. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Hon’ble
Speaker has answered point No.2 on this alleged conduct of respondent
No.2 meeting the INC party leaders and allegedly joining the ceremony
and contesting the Lok Sabha elections on the INC party ticket in detail
by referring to the totality of evidence while coming to the conclusion
that it did not give rise to the irresistible inference of voluntary giving up
of BRS membership required under para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule
of the Constitution of India. To disqualify an elected representative on
the basis of speculative media reports concerning activities that the
member’s own party has chosen to condone would be an unjustified
interference with the democratic mandate. Moreover, the petitioner has
relied on hearsay evidence. His lack of personal knowledge and
continued institutional adherence of respondent No.2 to the BRS within
the House led to the conclusion that the high constitutional threshold for
para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule has not been met. Therefore, no
grounds are made out for interfering in the matter.
(j) Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 has also referred
to the discussion on point No.3 by the Hon’ble Speaker. He submits
33
that the Hon’ble Speaker has rightly held that the petitioner has not been
able to discharge the heavy burden of proof required to establish the
disqualification. The petitioner admitted in his cross-examination that
he had no personal knowledge of the alleged joining ceremony. That
despite this lack of personal knowledge, the petitioner failed to examine
a single primary witness, such as reporter, editor, publisher or any other
media professional, who could verify the contents of the media reports.
Therefore, the secondary evidence materials were unverified hearsay,
legally insufficient to displace a democratically elected representative.
(k) On point No.4 relating to legal effect of the BRS party’s
silence, continued official recognition of respondent No.2 as a BRS
member and the absence of any internal disciplinary action against
respondent No.2, the Hon’ble Speaker has held that respondent No.2
continued to be recognized as BRS member in the official records and
has adhered to all party directions within the Legislative Assembly and
has not formally joined any other political party. Therefore, the
petitioner has failed to establish that respondent No.2 has by clear,
categorical and unambiguous conduct, voluntarily given up his
membership of the BRS party. The irresistible inference of defection
sought by the petitioner cannot be safely drawn. Therefore, the grounds
for disqualification are not met. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Speaker
34
has applied his mind and balanced all the factors to come to the
conclusion that the aforesaid acts do not substantiate the plea of
disqualification of respondent No.2.
Reply submissions of learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Vivek Reddy:
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.8409 of
2026 in his reply has, inter alia, made the following submissions:
(a) That disqualification under para 2(1)(a) has been applied to
conduct outside the House in the following cases:
i) Members of Legislative Assembly contesting subsequent
Parliamentary elections from another party (Dr. Mahachandra Prasad
Singh (supra)).
ii) Member of Legislative Council campaigning on behalf of
his wife who was a candidate of another political party (Konda
Muralidhar Rao vs. Dr. A.Chakrapani, Hon’ble Chairman,
A.P.Legislative Council
16
).
iii) Member of Legislative Council from BRS contesting
Legislative Assembly elections from Congress party (R.Bhoopathi
Reddy (supra)).
iv) Meeting Governor with opposition party leaders (Ravi S.
Naik (supra)).
v) Members of Legislative Assembly requesting the
Governor to invite another political party to form the Government
(Rajendra Singh Rana vs. Swami Prasad Maurya
17
).
16
2013 (2) ALT 310 (DB)
17
(2007) 4 SCC 270
35
vi) Voting for candidates proposed by other political parties in
Legislative Council elections (Mandadi Satyanarayana Reddy
(supra)).
(b) In the case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra),
Konda Muralidhar Rao (supra), R.Bhoopathi Reddy (supra), Ravi
S.Naik (supra) and Rajendra Singh Rana (supra) the Hon’ble Courts
have, in exercise of powers of judicial review, declared that the
concerned legislators have suffered disqualification.
(c) He has further submitted that defection proceedings are
materially different from election disputes.
i) Defection is a constitutional wrong whereas election
disputes are for statutory infractions. Kihoto Hollohan (supra) (para 9)
and Chapter III – Disqualifications under the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 have been referred to.
ii) Election disputes are adversarial proceedings. Defection
proceedings are non-adversarial (Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh
(supra) (para 16)).
iii) There is no lis between the member moving the
disqualification petition and the member who incurs a disqualification.
iv) In defection proceedings the Hon’ble Speaker has an
independent duty de hors pleadings.
v) Even withdrawal of a disqualification petition makes no
difference, once facts are informed to the Hon’ble Speaker, there is a
constitutional duty to decide on defection.
36
(d) It is pointed out that the order in Disqualification Petition
No.4 of 2024 concerning W.P.No.8409 of 2026 stands on a different
footing than Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2024 concerning
W.P.No.8647 of 2026.
i) Disqualification Petition No.4 of 2024 was filed on
01.07.2024 after respondent No.2 filed his nomination as an INC party
candidate on 23.04.2024.
ii) There is no reliance on media reports. The list of exhibits
are official documents or gazette notification.
iii) The verification memo and Section 63 of BSA affidavit
were filed by the petitioner on 02.03.2026.
(e) It is further submitted that defection under para 2(1)(a) of the
Tenth Schedule is independent of actions of the political party.
i) Para 2(1)(a) is not concerned with whether political party
condoned actions of respondent No.2. Only the enquiry under para
2(1)(b) is concerned with condonation by political party. Learned
Senior Counsel refers to Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) (para
15).
ii) Defection proceedings are not bilateral affairs, whereby
any voluntarily giving up of membership can only happen if the political
party initiates defection proceedings.
iii) Even if respondent No.2 subsequently contests elections
from BRS, he would stand disqualified for disqualifying act of having
contested as INC party candidate against a BRS candidate.
37
- That constitutional courts have declared defection even when the
Hon’ble Speaker refused to disqualify a candidate (Rajendra Singh
Rana (supra)).
(f) Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that when facts are
admitted, any issue of burden of proof does not arise. In the present
case, respondent No.2 admits to all relevant facts. Therefore, no other
view is possible except that respondent No.2 defected from BRS (Jagjit
Singh (supra) (para 48) and Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra)
(para 19)).
(g) That verification of annexures does not arise because
respondent No.2 has not denied the averments made in the petition. That
verification of averments was filed before the Hon’ble Speaker and it
satisfied the standard laid down in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh
(supra).
i) Verification filed in this case is consistent with the
verification clause in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) (paras
16 and 17) .
ii) In any event, verification was a procedural defect that was
curable. The petitioner had filed a verification memo (page 181 of
W.P.No.8409 of 2026).
iii) That procedural rules cannot frustrate the object of
substantive provisions ((Ravi S. Naik (supra) (para 18) and Dr.
Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) (para 16)).
38
iv) After issuing notice on the disqualification petition and
forwarding copies of the petition, the Hon’ble Speaker is estopped from
dismissing the petition on procedural grounds. Learned Senior Counsel
refers to Rule 7(2) of the 1986 Rules.
(h) That petitioner relied on public documents and gazettes which
are presumed to be genuine and no verification was required.
(i) He has relied on the provisions of Sections 80 and 81 of BSA
and the decision in the case of M. Siddiq (supra) in support of the
proposition.
(j) He submits that when respondent No.2 contested and
campaigned against a BRS candidate, there was an irresistible inference
of defection. That findings on verification and burden of proof in
Disqualification Petition No.4 of 2024 have been copied and pasted
from the order of Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2024 at para 10.2 and
10.3 of the impugned order.
(k) Learned Senior Counsel submits that the finality attached to
the Hon’ble Speaker’s decision does not detract from judicial review for
constitutional violations, mala fides, breach of natural justice and
perversity as laid down in Kihoto Hollohan (supra) (para 111). That
the requirement that allegations must be proved by evidence is not
applicable to the present case as respondent No.2 has admitted the
allegations. He also submits that strict rules of evidence are not
39
applicable in disqualification proceedings as held in (Konda
Muralidhar Rao (supra) (para 14)). He submits that in the case of
Speaker, Orissa Legislative Assembly v. Utkal Keshari Parida
18
, the
Apex Court has clearly held at para 19 that any person can file the
disqualification petition. The 1986 Rules, therefore, framed before the
decision in Utkal Keshari Parida (supra) cannot be applied to the case
at hand.
Reply submissions of learned Senior Counsel Sri Gandra Mohan
Rao:
11. Learned Senior Counsel, in his reply, has reiterated his statements
made earlier. He submits that when respondent No.2 met the Hon’ble
Chief Minister and the AICC In charge of the said party in the State and
also other INC party leaders, which has been published in the media and
Kanduva was placed on his shoulders, the only irresistible conclusion is
that he has voluntarily given up membership of the party from which he
was elected as MLA. He has once again referred to the disqualification
petition and the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner and submitted
that respondent No.2 in his counter affidavit, has at no place denied the
allegation that he had joined the INC party. Learned Senior Counsel has
referred to Brundaban Nayak vs. Election Commission of India
19
rendered by a Constitution Bench on Article 191 of the Constitution of
18
(2013) 11 SCC 794
19
AIR 1965 SC 1892
40
India. He submits that the date of disqualification of respondent No.2 is
15.03.2024 on which date, respondent No.2 joined the INC party. All
the subsequent acts reinforce this conclusion that respondent No.2
joined the INC party and sought a ticket to contest the Parliamentary
elections in 2024. He further submits that in the given facts and
circumstances, this court may arrive at a conclusion on the date of
respondent No.2’s defection as 15.03.2024 or 21.03.2024, as the case
may be. He submits that respondent No.2 contested the elections in
April 2024. He has been continuing for more than two years since then
due to the delay in disposal of the disqualification petition by the
Hon’ble Speaker which defeats the object behind the Tenth Schedule.
Submissions of Sri Tulsi Raj Gokul, learned counsel for respondent
No.1:
12. Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Speaker is a high
constitutional authority. He is not expected to defend his order in a court
proceedings. He, however, submits that since the allegations of bias on
the conduct of the Hon’ble Speaker have been made, it is imperative to
refer to the opinion of the Apex Court at para 115 of Kihoto Hollohan’s
case (supra). In the said case, the Apex Court has considered the office
of the Hon’ble Speaker to be an embodiment of propriety and
impartiality. Apart from his legislative functions, one such function is of
a judicial character of adjudication on the disqualification petitions. The
41
investiture of power of determination and adjudication is invested on the
Hon’ble Speaker by virtue of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
The Hon’ble Speaker in this case has adhered to the principles of natural
justice and taken into consideration all the documents and pleadings
following the principles laid down in Jagjit Singh’s case (supra). The
Hon’ble Speaker has also given the opportunity of cross examination
following the principles in Ravi S. Naik’s case (supra) and opportunity
of personal hearing was also given and an impartial decision was
rendered. Therefore, this court may consider the submissions of the
rival parties in the light of the high constitutional position of the Hon’ble
Speaker in the scheme of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of
India.
Issues:
13. On the basis of the pleadings on record and the legal submissions
of the parties, the following issues arise for decision in these writ
petitions:
(i) Whether the decision of the Hon’ble Speaker is vitiated on
the grounds of judicial review as laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the decision of Kihoto Hollohan
(supra)?
(ii) Whether respondent No.2 a sitting MLA of the Telangana
Legislative Assembly has incurred disqualification in
42
terms of para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the
Constitution of India and if so, with effect from what date?
Analysis:
14. Before dealing with the issues referred to hereinabove, the
principles on which judicial review of the decision of the Hon’ble
Speaker/Chairman can be undertaken under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India as has been laid down in the case of Kihoto
Hollohan (supra) at para 111, are to be taken note of which are
extracted hereunder:
“111. In the result, we hold on contentions (E) and (F):
That the Tenth Schedule does not, in providing for an additional grant (sic
ground) for disqualification and for adjudication of disputed disqualifications,
seek to create a non-justiciable constitutional area. The power to resolve such
disputes vested in the Speaker or Chairman is a judicial power.
That Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule, to the extent it seeks to impart
finality to the decision of the speakers/Chairmen is valid. But the concept of
statutory finality embodied in Paragraph 6(1) does not detract from or abrogate
judicial review under Articles 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution insofar as
infirmities based on violations of constitutional mandates, mala fides, non-
compliance with Rules of Natural Justice and perversity, are concerned.
That the deeming provision in Paragraph 6(2) of the Tenth Schedule
attracts an immunity analogous to that in Articles 122(1) and 212(1) of the
Constitution as understood and explained in Keshav Singh case [(1965) 1 SCR
413 : AIR 1965 SC 745] to protect the validity of proceedings from mere
irregularities of procedure. The deeming provision, having regard to the words
‘be deemed to be proceedings in Parliament’ or ‘proceedings in the legislature
of a State’ confines the scope of the fiction accordingly.
The Speakers/Chairmen while exercising powers and discharging
functions under the Tenth Schedule act as Tribunal adjudicating rights and
obligations under the Tenth Schedule and their decisions in that capacity are
amenable to judicial review.
However, having regard to the Constitutional Schedule in the Tenth
Schedule, judicial review should not cover any stage prior to the making of a
decision by the Speakers/Chairmen. Having regard to the constitutional
intendment and the status of the repository of the adjudicatory power, no quia
timet actions are permissible, the only exception for any interlocutory
interference being cases of interlocutory disqualifications or suspensions which
may have grave, immediate and irreversible repercussions and consequence.”
43
15. The Hon’ble Speaker/Chairman, while exercising powers and
discharging functions under the Tenth Schedule acts as Tribunal
adjudicating rights and obligations under the Tenth Schedule and their
decisions in that capacity are amenable to judicial review. The judicial
review of such decision is permissible on the following four grounds:
i) Violation of constitutional mandate;
ii) Mala fides
iii) Non-compliance of the rules of natural justice; and
iv) Perversity.
16. The facts of the case in Disqualification Petition No.4 of 2024
from which W.P.No.8409 of 2026 arises show that respondent No.2, an
MLA elected from the BRS party from 60-Khairatabad Assembly
Constituency filed his nomination as a candidate set up by the INC party
for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections to 08-Secunderabad constituency on
23.04.2024. He also campaigned against the BRS party candidate from
Secunderabad Constituency. He ultimately lost the 2024 Lok Sabha
elections. The disqualification petition by the petitioner, an MLA from
BJP party, was filed on 01.07.2024 before the Hon’ble Speaker seeking
a declaration that respondent No.2 was disqualified from continuing as
BRS party MLA, as he had voluntarily given up his membership in BRS
by contesting the Parliamentary elections from the INC party and
against the BRS party.
44
17. Let it be indicated here that by order, dated 31.07.2025, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Hon’ble Speaker to decide the
disqualification petition within three months. Respondent No.2 filed his
counter affidavit on 19.01.2026. The petitioner submitted his
examination in chief and was cross-examined. After hearing learned
counsel for the parties, the Hon’ble Speaker dismissed the
disqualification petition on 11.03.2026 by the impugned decision.
18. The disqualification petition specifically alleged that respondent
No.2 has contested the Parliamentary elections against the BRS and on
behalf of the INC party and had become disqualified to continue as a
member of BRS party for having voluntarily given up his membership
of the BRS. The petitioner filed Ex.P1 – downloaded copy of the
affidavit dated 06.11.2023 filed by respondent No.2 in Form 26 before
the Returning Officer for Election to Telangana Legislative Assembly
from 60 – Khairatabad Constituency, Ex.P2 – downloaded copy of the
Gazette Notification No.44, dated 04.12.2023, issued by the Chief
Electoral Officer, Telangana; Ex.P3 – downloaded copy of the affidavit
dated 23.04.2024 filed by respondent No.2 in Form 26 before the
Returning Officer for Election to Lok Sabha 08-Secunderabad
Parliamentary Constituency and Ex.P4 – downloaded copy of Form 7A
dated 29.04.2024 issued by the Returning Officer, 08-Secunderabad
45
Parliamentary Constituency and Additional Collector (Revenue),
Hyderabad. In the counter affidavit, respondent No.2 did not deny that
he was elected as a Member of BRS (election results notified in Gazette
No.44, dated 04.12.2023 issued by the Chief Electoral Officer,
Telangana). Respondent No.2 admitted that he filed his nomination for
Lok Sabha elections from the INC party on 23.04.2024, despite he being
an elected BRS member. He also did not deny that he was set up as INC
party candidate for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Respondent No.2 also
did not deny that he campaigned against the BRS candidate in the Lok
Sabha elections. The petitioner supported these statements in his
examination and cross-examination. These documents were evidenced
as Exhibits in the disqualification petition. In the wake of such pleadings
and the evidence on record, the Hon’ble Speaker framed the following
four points for consideration after conclusion of the arguments:
(1) Whether the Speaker’s jurisdiction as a Tribunal under
Paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule is constitutionally confined to
conduct having a direct nexus with legislative proceedings within the
House, and if so, whether the present Petition, founded substantially on
conduct external to the Telangana Legislative Assembly, is
maintainable?
(2) Whether the Respondent’s conduct of contesting the Lok
Sabha election on the INC ticket constitutes “voluntarily giving up
membership” of the BRS within the meaning of Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the
Tenth Schedule?
(3) What is the evidentiary value of the material placed on record
by the Petitioner, and whether the Petitioner was discharged the heavy
burden of proof required to establish disqualification?
(4) Whether the Petitioner has complied with the mandatory
procedural requirements under the 1986 Rules?
46
19. The Hon’ble Speaker also took note of the decisions in Kihoto
Hollohan (supra), Jagjit Singh (supra), Ravi S.Naik (supra),
Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) and Nabam Rebia and
Bamang Felix vs. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative
Assembly
20
cited by the learned counsel for the parties.
Point No.1 has been answered in the following manner.
6.8. This Tribunal is of the considered view that while the Speaker's
jurisdiction is not strictly limited to the Assembly floor, it is
constitutionally "tethered" to the legislative sphere. Under Article 191(1)
and Article 192, the Governor, guided by the Election Commission, is
the proper authority for disqualifications arising from a member's
external status or general political conduct. Conversely, Article 191(2)
and the Tenth Schedule vest the Speaker with a specialized, narrow
jurisdiction to protect the House from instability caused by legislative
defection. To extend this authority to regulate a member's external
electoral choices, where those choices have no impact on the stability or
functioning of this House, would be to impermissibly merge two distinct
constitutional pathways of disqualification.
6.9. The main purpose of the Tenth Schedule, as articulated in KIHOTO
HOLLOHAN (SUPRA) , is to prevent unprincipled floor-crossing that
jeopardizes the mandate given by the electorate to a political party within
the legislature. In the absence of any act by the Respondent that
destabilizes the BRS Legislature Party's numerical strength or
functioning in this House, the jurisdictional trigger for Paragraph 2(1)(a)
remains dormant.
20. The findings of the Hon’ble Speaker on point No.1 are in
violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 191(2) of the
Constitutional of India read with para 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b) of the Tenth
Schedule for the reasons recorded hereinafter. Article 191(2), para
2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b) are extracted hereunder:
20
(2016) 8 SCC 1
47
191. Disqualifications for membership.—(1) xxx
(2) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of the Legislative
Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if he is so disqualified under
the Tenth Schedule.
2. Disqualification on ground of defection.—(1) Subject to the
provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5, a member of a House belonging to any
political party shall be disqualified for being a member of the House—
(a) if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political
party; or
(b) if he votes or abstains from voting in such House contrary to
any direction issued by the political party to which he belongs or by any
person or authority authorised by it in this behalf, without obtaining, in
either case, the prior permission of such political party, person or
authority and such voting or abstention has not been condoned by such
political party, person or authority within fifteen days from the date of
such voting or abstention.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-paragraph,—
(a) an elected member of a House shall be deemed to belong to
the political party, if any, by which he was set up as a candidate for
election as such member;
(b) a nominated member of a House shall,—
(i) where he is a member of any political party on the date of his
nomination as such member, be deemed to belong to such political
party;
(ii) in any other case, be deemed to belong to the political party
of which he becomes, or, as the case may be, first becomes, a member
before the expiry of six months from the date on which he takes his seat
after complying with the requirements of article 99 or, as the case may
be, article 188.
21. The case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra), cited
before the Hon’ble Speaker is on similar facts wherein it was held that
contesting a parliamentary election on another party’s ticket amounts to
voluntarily giving up membership under para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth
Schedule to the Constitution of India (see paras 20 and 23).
Mahachandra Prasad Singh was an elected Member of Bihar Legislative
Council (MLC) from Tirhut Graduate Constituency as a candidate of
Indian National Congress. While being so, he contested the elections to
the Fourteenth Lok Sabha in March, 2004 from Maharajgunj
48
Parliamentary Constituency as an independent candidate. A member of
the Bihar Legislative Council sent a petition to the Chairman of the
Legislative Council stating that the petitioner had incurred
disqualification from being a Member of the House on the ground that
he had contested the Parliamentary elections from Maharajgunj
Parliamentary Constituency as an independent candidate. After
considering the explanation offered by Mahachandra Prasad Singh, the
Chairman of the Legislative Council passed the impugned order holding
that the petitioner had contested the election for the Bihar Legislative
Council in the year 1998 as a candidate of Congress party and was a
member of the said political party and that he had contested Lok Sabha
election 2004 as an independent candidate and thus, he had voluntarily
given up his membership of Congress party and therefore, he was
disqualified for being a Member of the House in view of para 2(1)(a) of
the Tenth Schedule read with Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India
and seat held by him in the House has become vacant. Mahachandra
Prasad Singh approached the Supreme Court against the order of his
disqualification in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India. The Apex Court held that by contesting the Parliamentary election
as an independent candidate, despite being elected MLC from the
Congress party, he voluntarily gave up the membership of Congress
49
party. Paras 20 and 23 containing the opinion of the Apex Court are
extracted hereunder:
20. The third submission of Shri Mishra has hardly any substance.
In view of Explanation (a) appended to sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 2
of the Tenth Schedule, the petitioner shall be deemed to belong to Indian
National Congress Party by which he was set up as a candidate for
contesting the election for Member of Legislative Council in the year
1998. By contesting the parliamentary election as an independent
candidate, he voluntarily gave up the membership of Congress Party. In
G. Viswanathan v. Hon'ble Speaker T.N. Legislative Assembly [(1996) 2
SCC 353] the Bench quoted with approval the observations made in Ravi
S. Naik v. Union of India [1994 Supp (2) SCC 641] in para 11 of the
Report that even in the absence of a formal resignation from membership,
an inference can be drawn from the conduct of a member that he has
voluntarily given up his membership of the political party to which he
belongs. On the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the finding
arrived at by the Chairman of the Legislative Council that the petitioner
gave up the membership of Indian National Congress Party to which he
belonged is one which could not reasonably and possibly have been
arrived at.
23. No new point has been urged by Shri P.S. Mishra in the
present case. It is admitted in paras 4 and 6 of the writ petition that the
petitioner had been elected as member of the Legislative Council in the
year 1998 as a candidate of Indian National Congress Party and that he
filed his nomination papers for contesting the parliamentary election held
in May 2004 as a candidate of Samajwadi Party. This factual position was
not disputed by the petitioner in the replies given by him to the Chairman
of the House. In such circumstances, there cannot be even the slightest
doubt that the petitioner has voluntarily given up his membership of
Indian National Congress Party. No exception can, therefore, be taken to
the decision taken by the Chairman of the House that the petitioner has
incurred the disqualification for being a member of the House under
Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule and Article 191(2) of the
Constitution and the seat held by him had fallen vacant.
22. The Hon’ble Speaker has not even referred to and discussed the
ratio rendered in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) while giving
a finding on point No.1 that the Speaker’s jurisdiction is constitutionally
tethered to the legislative sphere. That under Article 191(2) and the
Tenth Schedule the Speaker is vested with a specialised, narrow
jurisdiction to protect the House from instability caused by legislative
50
defection. To extend this authority to regulate a member's external
electoral choices, where those choices have no impact on the stability or
functioning of this House, would be to impermissibly merge two distinct
constitutional pathways of disqualification under Article 191(1) and (2)
of the Constitution of India.
23. The disqualification under para 2(1)(a) for the conduct outside
the House by Hon’ble Speaker has been applied not only in the case of
Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra), but also in Konda
Muralidhar Rao (supra), R.Bhoopathi Reddy (supra), Ravi S. Naik
(supra) and Rajendra Singh Rana (supra). Therefore, the findings of
the Hon’ble Speaker on point No.1 cannot be sustained in the
permissible grounds of judicial review as laid down in the case of
Kihoto Hollohan (supra).
24. Point No.2 framed by the Hon’ble Speaker, i.e., whether the
Respondent’s conduct of contesting the Lok Sabha election on the INC
ticket constitutes “voluntarily giving up membership” of the BRS within
the meaning of para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule, has been answered
holding that the act of contesting Lok Sabha election while being a
Member of State Legislative Assembly is not constitutionally
prohibited. The Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the
Constitutional Scheme permit any eligible citizen including an MLA to
51
contest elections to Parliament. If contesting a Parliamentary election on
a different party’s ticket were to be treated as automatic defection from
the State Assembly, the Constitution would expressly provide so. No
such provision exists. Constitutional disqualification cannot be founded
upon implication where the text does not so mandate. The Hon’ble
Speaker further held that disqualification of an elected representative on
the basis of speculative media reports concerning activities that the
members own party has chosen to condone would be an unjustified
inference with the democratic mandate. The petitioner has relied on
hearsay. His lack of personal knowledge and the continued institutional
adherence of the respondent No.2 to the BRS within the House led to the
conclusion that the High Constitutional threshold for para 2(1)(a) has
not been met. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out any
ground available within the scope of Tenth Schedule warranting
disqualification of respondent No.2. The Hon’ble Speaker also held that
respondent No.2’s conduct taken into totality does not give rise to the
irresistible inference of voluntarily giving up of BRS membership
required under para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule.
25. The finding of the Hon’ble Speaker on point No.2 is perverse in
the eye of law and the settled position in this regard as laid down in the
case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) and other decisions
52
referred to while dealing with the findings rendered on point No.1 by the
Hon’ble Speaker.
26. Para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule is not concerned with, where
the political party condoned actions by respondent No.2. In an enquiry
under para 2(1)(b) whether the conduct of the member in violating the
whips or direction on the floor of the House, it is to be seen that such act
has been condoned by the political party.
27. The petitioner had categorically relied on Exs.P.1 to P.4, which
are downloaded copy of affidavit dated 06.11.2023 filed by the
respondent No.2 in Form 26 before the Returning Officer of 60-
Khairatabad Assembly Constituency (Ex.P.1), downloaded copy of
Gazette Notification No.44, dated 04.12.2023 issued by the Chief
Electoral Officer, Telangana (Ex.P.2), downloaded copy of the affidavit
dated 23.04.2024 filed by the respondent No.2 in Form 26 before the
Returning Officer of 08-Secunderabad Parliamentary Constituency
(Ex.P.3) and downloaded copy of Form 7A dated 29.04.2024 issued by
the Returning Officer of 08-Secunderabad Parliamentary Constituency
(Ex.P.4). Moreover, respondent No.2 has not denied the material facts
which constitute disqualification i.e., his election as a Member of BRS
to the Legislative Assembly in 2023; his nomination as a candidate set
up by the INC party for Parliamentary elections to the Lok Sabha in
53
2024; that he had filed his nomination from the INC party to the Lok
Sabha on 23.04.2024 and that he had campaigned against the BRS
candidate in the Lok Sabha elections. When respondent No.2 had
admitted all the relevant facts constituting the acts of disqualification,
the Hon’ble Speaker could not take any other view of the matter except
that he had defected from BRS party. The issue in the similar set of facts
has been dealt with and answered in the case of Dr. Mahachandra
Prasad Singh (supra) at para 19 and Jagjit Singh (supra) at para 48.
The relevant extracts are as under:
Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra):
19. … Regarding the complaint of non-supply of the copy of the letter sent by
Prof. Arun Kumar, leader of Indian National Congress in the Bihar Legislative
Council, whereby he had informed that the petitioner Shri Mahachandra Prasad
Singh had ceased to be a member of Indian National Congress for violating the
party discipline, the only relevant fact stated therein is that the petitioner had
been elected as a member of the Bihar Legislative Council on a Congress ticket
but he had contested the parliamentary election as an independent candidate.
These facts have never been disputed by the petitioner in his replies, which he
submitted before the Chairman of the Legislative Council and have also been
admitted in Paragraphs 5 and 7 in the present writ petition. Therefore, the non-
supply of copy of the letter of the leader of Congress Legislative Party has no
bearing at all as no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner
and consequently in the facts of the present case, no principle of natural justice
can be said to have been violated.
Jagjit Singh (supra)
48. Relying upon Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak
Gosavi [AIR 1960 SC 100 : (1960) 1 SCR 773] it was sought to be contended on
behalf of the petitioners that the admissions allegedly made before the media
could be explained and shown as erroneous and not binding on them and,
therefore, opportunity ought to have been granted to them to prove so and the
failure to grant opportunity vitiates the impugned orders. The petitioners had
failed to plead how the admissions/statements made by them were erroneous.
Had they done so, then the question of its proof would have arisen. Instead of so
doing, the petitioners only took shelter under the general vague denial pleading
that they wish to adduce evidence. It is also to be remembered, as observed by
the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, that admission is the best evidence that
can be relied upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless
54
successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. The petitioners have failed to
satisfy the latter part.
28. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the finding on point
No.2 by the Hon’ble Speaker cannot be sustained on grounds of
perversity and breach of constitutional obligations.
29. Point No.3 deals with the evidentiary value of the material placed
on record by the petitioner and whether the petitioner has discharged the
heavy burden of proof required to establish disqualification.
30. The Hon’ble Speaker has dealt with the petitioner’s evidence
which consists of Ex.P.1, which is the downloaded copy of the affidavit
dated 06.11.2023 filed by respondent No.2 in Form 26 before the
Returning Officer for Election to Telangana Legislative Assembly from
60 – Khairatabad Constituency. This document is the statutory affidavit
filed in Form 26 by respondent No.2 along with his nomination on
06.11.2023 as a candidate of BRS contesting the Khairatabad Assembly
Constituency. This has not been denied by respondent No.2.
31. Ex.P.2 is the downloaded copy of the Gazette Notification No.44,
dated 04.12.2023, issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana,
declaring the results of the general elections to the Telangana State
Legislative Assembly, 2023, where at serial No.60, the name of
respondent No.2 appears as elected member of 60-Khairatabad
55
Assembly Constituency from BRS. This fact has not been denied by
respondent No.2.
32. Ex.P.3 is the downloaded copy of the affidavit dated 23.04.2024
filed by respondent No.2 in Form 26 before the Returning Officer for
Election to Lok Sabha 08-Secunderabad Parliamentary Constituency
declaring himself to be a candidate set up by the INC party. These facts
and the affidavit have not been denied by respondent No.2.
33. Ex.P.4 is the downloaded copy of Form 7A dated 29.04.2024
issued by the Returning Officer, 08-Secunderabad Parliamentary
Constituency and Additional Collector (Revenue), Hyderabad, showing
the list of contesting candidates to the House of the people from the 08-
Secunderabad Parliamentary Constituency, and the said document was
issued after completion of scrutiny and withdrawal of nominations for
the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The name of respondent No.2 appears
along with his photograph, address and the party affiliation as “Indian
National Congress” with the party symbol of “hand”. Respondent No.2
has not denied the assertion of the fact and the document at Ex.P.4. The
Hon’ble Speaker has, while dealing with this point, held that the
documents marked as Exs.P.3 and P.4 are neither original documents
nor certified copies obtained from the competent authority in accordance
with the prescribed procedure for issuance of certified copies.
56
Therefore, no evidentiary value can be attached to the said documents,
particularly when the persons connected with those documents have not
been examined to prove their execution, authenticity or correctness.
Therefore, the petitioner has failed to establish by cogent, convincing
and trustworthy evidence that respondent No.2 voluntarily gave up the
membership of BRS party and joined the INC party. This point was
accordingly answered against the petitioner and in favour of respondent
No.2. In the absence of proof of the documents, the allegation of
voluntarily giving up the membership cannot be sustained. The Hon’ble
Speaker relied upon the case of Ravi S. Naik (supra) to hold that the
findings of the Speaker must be supported by credible evidence. In the
case of Rajendra Singh Rana (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that the discretion must be determined on the basis of materials and
evidence placed before the Speaker. In the case of Shrimanth
Balasaheb Patil (supra) also it was reiterated that the Speaker must rely
on legally admissible material and relevant evidence while determining
disqualification. Since the petitioner failed to produce relevant official
material documents, the allegations could not be accepted. In the
absence of testimony, the secondary materials remain unverified
hearsay, which is legally insufficient to displace a democratically
elected representative. The findings on point No.3 by the Hon’ble
57
Speaker are untenable on the ground that the petitioner relied on public
documents and gazettes. Sections 80 and 81 of BSA read as under:
80. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, and other documents.—The
Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the Official
Gazette, or to be a newspaper or journal, and of every document purporting to be a
document directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept
substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section and Section 92, document is said
to be in proper custody if it is in the place in which, and looked after by the person
with whom such document is required to be kept; but no custody is improper if it is
proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case
are such as to render that origin probable.
81. Presumption as to Gazettes in electronic or digital record.—The Court
shall presume the genuineness of every electronic or digital record purporting to be
the Official Gazette, or purporting to be electronic or digital record directed by any
law to be kept by any person, if such electronic or digital record is kept substantially
in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section and Section 93 electronic
records are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and looked
after by the person with whom such document is required to be kept; but no custody
is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or the circumstances of the
particular case are such as to render that origin probable.
34. In the case of M. Siddiq (supra), the Constitution Bench at para
861 held as under:
861. Section 81 of the Evidence Act, 1872 requires the court to “presume the
genuineness of every document purporting to be…any Official Gazette, or the
Government Gazette of any colony, dependency or possession of the British
Crown…”. [ Section 81 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides thus:“81. Presumption
as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament and other documents.—The
Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London
Gazette, or any Official Gazette, or the Government Gazette of any colony,
dependency or possession of the British Crown, or to be a newspaper or journal, or
to be a copy of a private Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom printed by the
Queen's Printer and of every document purporting to be a document directed by any
law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form
required by law and is produced from proper custody.”] Section 81 raises a
presumption of the genuineness of the document and not of its contents. When the
court has to form an opinion on the existence of a fact of a public nature, Section 37
of the Evidence Act [Section 37 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides thus:“37.
Relevancy of statement as to fact of public nature, contained in certain Acts or
notifications.—When the Court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any
fact of a public nature, any statement of it, made in a recital contained in any Act of
Parliament of the United Kingdom, or in any Central Act, Provincial Act, or a State
Act, or in a Government notification or notification by the Crown Representative
appearing in the Official Gazette or in any printed paper purporting to be the London
58
Gazette or the Government Gazette of any Dominion, colony or possession of His
Majesty is a relevant fact.”] indicates that any statement of it in a Government
Gazette is a relevant fact. While gazetteers have been noticed in several decisions of
this Court, it is equally important to note that the reliance placed on them is more in
the nature of corroborative material.
35. The Hon’ble Speaker also acted in teeth of the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when acts are admitted, the question of
burden of proof does not arise. In Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh
(supra) also it was held that in defection proceedings, the Hon’ble
Speaker has an independent duty to carry out the mandate of the Tenth
Schedule. There is no lis between the person moving the petition and the
member of the House who is alleged to have incurred a disqualification.
Whereas the election disputes are adversarial proceedings, the defection
proceedings are non-adversarial. The power is conferred upon the
Hon’ble Speaker under Article 191(2) read with Tenth Schedule of the
Constitution of India to correct a constitutional wrong of defection. The
vice of para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule is attracted when respondent
No.2 did not deny having contested the Lok Sabha elections from the
INC party by filing his nomination papers for the INC party on
23.04.2024, despite being an elected BRS member. In the case of
R.Bhoopathi Reddy (supra), a Division Bench of this Court also held
that once a member of a political party contests elections on behalf of
another party, he is considered to have voluntarily given up the
59
membership of the original political party. Para 70 thereof is quoted
hereunder:
70. Undoubtedly, the petitioner himself had admitted that he did contest the
election, scheduled to be held on 07.12.2018, on a ticket issued by the INC
Party. In the case of G. Viswanadhan (9 supra) the Apex Court has already
held that "when a Legislator joins another political party, he has to be
treated as having voluntarily given up his membership of the party by
which, he was set up as a candidate for the original election". In the present
case, the petitioner fought the original election on 12.12.2015 under the
support of TRS Party. However, in the election held on 07.12.2018, he
fought the election, as mentioned above, on behalf of the INC Party. Thus,
obviously, he had "voluntarily given up his membership" of the TRS Party.
Once such an admission is made by the petitioner, the giving of an
opportunity of hearing would be merely a formality, a ceremony to be
performed. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that
where the giving of an opportunity of hearing would merely be a ceremony
to be performed, such an opportunity need not be given to the concerned
person. Hence, the petitioner need not have been given an opportunity of
hearing.
36. Reliance placed by the Hon’ble Speaker in the cases of Ravi
S.Naik (supra), Rajendra Singh Rana (supra) and Shrimanth
Balasaheb Patil (supra) on this point are misplaced.
37. In Ravi S. Naik (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had in a
matter relating to split in the party laid down the proposition that the
Disqualification Rules are procedural in nature and any violation of the
same would amount to an irregularity in procedure which is immune
from judicial scrutiny in view of sub-para (2) of para 6 of
Disqualification Rules. The field of judicial review in respect of the
orders passed by the Hon’ble Speaker under sub-para (1) of para 6
would confine to breaches of the constitutional mandates, mala fides,
non-compliance with rules of natural justice and perversity. Violation of
Disqualification Rules cannot amount to violation of constitutional
60
mandates. Rules have subordinate status to the Constitution and cannot
be equated with the provisions of the Constitution. Any violation of the
Disqualification Rules does not afford a ground for judicial review of
the order of the Speaker in view of finality clause contained in sub-para
(1) of para 6 of the Tenth Schedule. In the facts of the said case, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the allegations regarding reference to
extraneous materials and circumstances in the order of the Speaker such
as reference of photographs printed in newspapers, showing the
appellant-members with MLAs belonging to another party while
meeting the Governor to say about the party strength for forming the
government is not sustainable as the Speaker while referring to the
photographs was also drawing an inference about their meeting with the
Governor which had not been denied by the appellants. The allegation of
denial of opportunity to adduce evidence is also without substance.
Therefore, reference to the said decision by the Hon’ble Speaker is
misplaced.
38. In case of Rajendra Singh Rana (supra), on a question of
defection of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) MLAs, the Apex Court held
that for seeking protection from disqualification for defection under
paras 3 and 4 of the Tenth Schedule, it is not enough that a claim is
made of a split in the original party in addition to showing that one-third
61
members of the legislature party have quit the party. Those who have
left the party have to prima facie show by relevant materials that there
has been a split in the original party. The said decision has no
application in the present case since the petitioner had produced and
relied upon official documents such as Exhibits P.1 to P.4 in support of
his case. Respondent No.2 has not denied these allegations in his counter
affidavit.
39. In the case of Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil (supra), the issue was
whether by resignation of the member, the disqualification proceeding
would become infructuous provided the acts warranting disqualification
under Tenth Schedule occurred prior to the date of resignation. The
Apex Court held that taint of disqualification does not vaporise by
tendering resignation. The decision of the Speaker/Chairman relates
back to the date when action/facts warranting disqualification under the
Tenth Schedule took place. The interpretation which glorifies the spirit
of the Constitution should be adopted. The inhibition contained under
the Constitution requires wider interpretation to cure existing evil.
40. Reliance placed by the Hon’ble Speaker in the case of Udey
Chand v. Surat Singh
21
is also misplaced as the said case relates to an
election petition filed under Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj
Act, 1994 alleging that since the Returning Officer had violated the
21
(2009) 10 SCC 170
62
provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder and had
committed certain illegality, the election of the appellant be set aside.
Reference to the said decision does not apply to the case on hand, which
deals with disqualification petition under the Tenth Schedule read with
Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India.
41. The findings of the Hon’ble Speaker, therefore, suffer from
perversity in failing to take into consideration the materials and the
evidence on record by which the petitioner had discharged the burden of
proof required to establish disqualification in the absence of any denial
by respondent No.2.
42. Point No.4 deals with the question whether the petitioner has
complied with the mandatory procedural requirements under the 1986
Rules.
43. The Hon’ble Speaker held that the procedural defects under Rule
6(6) and 6(7) regarding the lack of verification for each annexure were
fatal to the maintainability of the petition. The Hon’ble Speaker referred
to the decisions in Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar (supra) and Ravinder
Singh (supra) on the proposition that the pleadings in matters relating to
elected representatives must be construed strictly and that defects in
material pleadings are fatal to the proceedings.
63
44. The petitioner has taken the plea that the findings on verification
and burden of proof in Disqualification Petition No.4 of 2024 have been
copied and pasted from the order in Disqualification Petition No.1 of
2024, i.e., paras 10.2 and 10.3. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) has clearly laid
down that procedural rules cannot render the disqualification petition
invalid or affect the duty of the Hon’ble Speaker to carry out enquiry on
disqualification petition. In the case of Ravi S.Naik (supra) also referred
to hereinabove, the Apex Court held that Disqualification Rules are
procedural in nature and any violation of the same would amount to an
irregularity in procedure which is immune from judicial scrutiny.
Violation of disqualification rules cannot amount to violation of
constitutional mandates.
45. The decisions relied on by the respondent No.2 in Anil Vasudev
Salgaonkar (supra) and Ravinder Singh (supra) were rendered in
respect of petitions alleging corrupt practices under the Representation
of People Act, 1951. The reference to the rules of pleadings in a case of
election petition therein do not apply to the case on hand, which deals
with disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule read with
Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India.
64
46. In order to appreciate the applicability of the 1986 Rules, Rules 3,
6 and 7 thereof are extracted hereunder:
3. Information to be furnished by leader of a Legislature party: (1) The
Leader of each Legislature Party (other than a Legislature Party consisting of
only one member) shall, within thirty days after the first sitting of the House, or,
where such Legislature Party is formed after the first sitting, within thirty days
after its formation, or, in either case within such further period as the Speaker
may for sufficient cause allow, furnish the following to the Speaker, namely -
(a) A statement (in writing) containing the names of the members of such
Legislature party together with other particulars regarding such members as in
Form-I and the names and designations of the members of such party who have
been authorised by it for communicating with the Speaker for purposes of these
rules;
(b) a copy of the rules and regulations (whether known as such or as
constitution or by any other name) of the political party concerned; and
(c) where such Legislature party has any separate set of rules and
regulations (whether known as such or as constitution or by any other name) also
a copy of such rules and regulations.
(2) Where a Legislature party consists of only one member, such member
shall furnish a copy of the Rules and Regulations mentioned in clause (b) of sub-
rule (1) to the Speaker, within thirty days after the first sitting of the House or,
where he has become a member of the House after the first sitting, within thirty
days after he has taken his seat in the House, or in either case within such further
period as the Speaker may for sufficient cause allow.
(3) In the event of any increase in the strength of a Legislature Party
consisting of only one member, the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall apply in
relation to such Legislature Party as if such Legislature Party has been formed on
the first date on which its strength increased.
(4) Whenever any change takes place in the information furnished by the
Leader of a Legislature Party under sub-rule (1) or by a member under sub-rule
(2), he shall within thirty days thereafter, or, within such further period as the
Speaker may for sufficient cause allow, furnish in writing information to the
Speaker with respect to such change.
(5) In the case of the House in existence on the date of commencement of
these rules, the reference in sub-rules (1) and (2) to the date of the first sitting of
the House shall be construed as a reference to the date of commencement of
these Rules.
(6) Where a member belonging to any political party votes or abstains
from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by such political party
or by any person or authority authorised by it in this behalf, without obtaining, in
either case, the prior permission of such political party, person or authority, the
Leader of the Legislature Party concerned or where such member is the Leader,
or as the case may be, the sole member of such Legislature Party, such members,
shall, as soon as may be after the expiry of fifteen days from the date of such
voting or abstention, and in any case within thirty days from the date of such
voting or abstention, inform the Speaker as in Form II whether such voting or
abstention has or has not been condoned by such political party, person or
authority.
Explanation:- A Member may be regarded as having abstained from
voting only when he being entitled to vote voluntarily refrained from voting.
65
6. References to be by petitions: (1) No reference of any question as to
whether a member has become subject to disqualification under the Tenth
Schedule shall be made except by a petition in relation to such member made in
accordance with the provisions of this Rule.
(2) A Petition in relation to a member may be made in writing to the
Speaker by any other member;
Provided that a Petition in relation to the Speaker shall be addressed to the
Secretary.
(3) The Secretary shall,—
(a) as soon as may be after the receipt of a petition under the proviso to
sub-rule (2) make a report in respect thereof to the House; and
(b) as soon as may be after the House has elected a Member in pursuance
of the proviso to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule place
the petition before such member.
(4) Before making any Petition in relation to any member, the petitioner
shall satisfy himself that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a
question has arisen as to whether such member has become subject to
disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
(5) Every Petition,—
(a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the
Petitioner relies; and
(b) shall be accompanied by copies of the documentary evidence, if any,
on which the petitioner relies and where the petitioner relies on any information
furnished to him by any person, a statement containing the names and addresses
of such persons and the gist of such information as furnished by each such
person.
(6) Every petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the
manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the
verification of Pleadings.
(7) Every annexure to the Petition shall also be signed by the Petitioner
and verified in the same manner as the petition.
7. Procedure: (1) On receipt of petition under rule 6, the Speaker shall
consider whether the petition complies with the requirements of that rule.
(2) If the Petition does not comply with the requirements of rule 6, the
Speaker shall dismiss the Petition and intimate the petitioner accordingly.
(3) If the Petition complies with the requirements of rule 6 the Speaker
shall cause copies of the Petition and of the annexures thereto to be forwarded:
(a) to the member in relation to whom the petition has been made; and
(b) where such member belongs to any Legislature party and such petition
has not been made by the Leader thereof, also to such Leader and such member
or Leader shall within seven days of the receipt of such copies, or within such
further period as the Speaker may for sufficient cause allow, forward his
comments in writing thereon to the Speaker.
(4) After considering the comments, if any, in relation to the Petition,
received under sub-rule (3) within the period allowed (whether originally or on
extension under that sub-rule), the Speaker may either proceed to determine the
question or, if he is satisfied, having regard to the nature and circumstances of
the case that it is necessary or expedient so to do, refer the petition to the
Committee for making a preliminary inquiry and submitting a report to him.
66
(5) The Speaker shall, as soon as may be after referring a petition to the
Committee under sub-rule (4), intimate the petitioner accordingly and make an
announcement with respect to such reference in the House or, if the House is not
then in session, cause the information as to the reference, to be published in the
Bulletin.
(6) Where the Speaker makes a reference under sub-rule (4) to the
Committee, he shall proceed to determine the question as soon as may be after
receipt of the report from the Committee.
(7) The procedure which shall be followed by the Speaker for determining
any question and the procedure which shall be followed by the Committee for
the purpose of making a preliminary inquiry under sub-rule (4) shall be, so far as
may be, the same as the procedure for inquiry and determination by the
Committee of any question as to breach of privilege of the House by a member
and neither the Speaker nor the Committee shall come to any finding that a
member has become subject to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule
without affording a reasonable opportunity to such member to represent his case
and to be heard in person.
(8) The provisions of sub-rules (1) to (7) shall apply with respect to a
petition in relation to the Speaker as they apply with respect to a Petition in
relation to any other member and for this purpose, reference to the Speaker in
these sub-rules shall be construed as including references to the member elected
by the House under the proviso to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 of the Tenth
Schedule.
47. In the case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 16 held that the object of Rule 6 requires
every petition should be signed and verified in the manner laid down in
CPC for the verification of pleadings so that frivolous petitions making
false allegations may not be filed in order to cause harassment. Further
the Apex Court held that it is not possible to give strict interpretation to
Rules 6 and 7, otherwise the very object of the Constitution (Fifty-
second Amendment) Act by which the Tenth Schedule was added would
be defeated. A defaulting legislator, who has otherwise incurred
disqualification under para 2 would be able to get away by taking the
advantage of even a slight or insignificant error in the petition and
thereby asking the Chairman to dismiss the petitioner under sub-rule (2)
67
of Rule 7. The validity of the Rules can be sustained only if they are
held to be directory in nature as otherwise, on strict interpretation, they
would be rendered ultra vires. The Apex Court further at para 18
observed that the provisions of Rules 6 and 7 are directory in nature and
on account of non-filing of an affidavit as required by sub-rule (4) of
Order VI Rule 15 CPC, the petition would not be rendered invalid nor
would the assumption of jurisdiction by the Chairman on its basis be
adversely affected or rendered bad in any manner. Reference has also
been made in similar contentions raised before the Bench in Ravi S.
Naik (supra), para 18 thereof. Therefore, the finding on point No.4
rendered in complete disregard of the directory nature of the
disqualification rules as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while
interpreting the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of
India is perverse in the eye of law.
48. On behalf of respondent No.2, it has been argued that while
considering the question of defection under the Tenth Schedule, the
standards should be much stricter in exercise of the powers of the
judicial review. The unseating of the elected MLA would entail serious
consequences and do injustice to the electorate. Learned Senior Counsel
for respondent No.2 submitted that the impugned decision of the
Hon’ble Speaker does not deserve to be set aside on the four parameters
68
of judicial review rendered in the case of Kihoto Hollohan (supra). It is
a case where the Hon’ble Speaker upon consideration of the entire
materials based on record in the form of pleadings and evidence adduced
by the petitioner has by a well reasoned decision held that respondent
No.2 did not incur disqualification. He has submitted that a sitting MLA
can contest the Lok Sabha elections. It is only after being elected that he
can choose to remain in one party or the other. Therefore, the allegation
that respondent No.2 has voluntarily given up his affiliation to BRS by
contesting Parliamentary elections from INC party is not correct. The
petitioner relied upon four exhibits to support the allegations that
respondent No.2 has voluntarily given up his membership to BRS. The
petitioner was under a duty to satisfy the ingredients of Rule 6 of the
1986 Rules. According to him, non-compliance of verification along
with the petition is infraction of Rules 6 and 7 of the 1986 Rules. The
petitioner had filed a Memo to satisfy the requirement of verification
subsequent to the cross-examination at the time of final arguments. It
cannot cure the defect of Rule 6(6) or 6(7) of the 1986 Rules. This
aspect has also been considered by the Hon’ble Speaker in impugned
order. In the absence of compliance of Rule 6(6) and 6(7) of the 1986
Rules, the Hon’ble Speaker has rightly dismissed the petition after
dealing with the issue under point No.4 of the impugned order. He
69
submits that in the case of R.Bhoopathi Reddy (supra), the requirement
of compliance of Rule 6 and 7 has been held to be mandatory, otherwise
it is fatal. He has also sought to distinguish the decision of
Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) by stating that the Apex Court
at para 16 observed that the object of Rule 6 is to ensure that frivolous
petitions making false allegations may not be filed in order to cause
harassment. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 has reiterated
his submission that there is a distinction between Article 191(1)(e) and
Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India. In a case of this nature, the
Governor is only the competent authority who can disqualify if the
conduct of the Member is outside the House. Even Rule 7(3) of the 1986
Rules provides that a copy of the complaint is sent to the Leader of the
House, i.e., BRS calling for his explanation. It shows that the complaint
should only be in relation to the House. If the conduct of the member is
outside the House, then it attracts disqualification under Article
191(1)(e) of the Constitution of India. This issue has been dealt with by
the Hon’ble Speaker under point No.1 in the impugned order.
Respondent No.2 has not violated even a single whip by the BRS. No
complaint has been given by the BRS party to whom respondent No.2
belongs.
70
49. The contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for
respondent No.2 in support of the impugned decision does not merit
acceptance for the following reasons:
50. The election disputes are materially different from defection
proceedings as while the latter deals with constitutional grounds and is
non-adversarial in nature, the election disputes are in relation to
statutory infractions. Even withdrawal of disqualification petition would
make no difference once the points have been informed to the Hon’ble
Speaker who has constitutional duty to decide on the issue of defection.
The principle behind this has been laid down by the Apex Court in the
case of Kihoto Hollohan (supra) at para 9 which is quoted hereunder:
9. This brings to the fore the object underlying the provisions in the
Tenth Schedule. The object is to curb the evil of political defections
motivated by lure of office or other similar considerations which
endanger the foundations of our democracy. The remedy proposed is to
disqualify the Member of either House of Parliament or of the State
Legislature who is found to have defected from continuing as a Member
of the House. The grounds of disqualification are specified in Paragraph
2 of the Tenth Schedule.
51. In the same case, the Apex Court observed that a political party
functions on the strength of shared beliefs. Its own political stability and
social utility depends on such shared beliefs and concerted action of its
members in furtherance of those commonly held principles. Any
freedom of its members to vote as they please independently of the
political parties’ declared policies will not only embarrass its public
image and popularity but also undermine public confidence in it which
71
in the ultimate analysis is its sources of sustenance – nay indeed its very
survival. The opinion of the learned author – Griffith and Ryle on
‘Parliament Functions, Practice and Procedure’ (1989 edn., p.119) was
referred to and quoted at para 44, which reads as under:
Loyalty to party is the norm, being based on shared beliefs. A
divided party is looked on with suspicion by the electorate. It is natural
for Members to accept the opinion of their Leaders and Spokesmen on
the wide variety of matters on which those Members have no specialist
knowledge. Generally Members will accept majority decisions in the
party even when they disagree. It is understandable therefore that a
Member who rejects the party whip even on a single occasion will attract
attention and more criticism than sympathy. To abstain from voting when
required by party to vote is to suggest a degree of unreliability. To vote
against party is disloyalty. To join with others in abstention or voting
with the other side smacks of conspiracy.
52. The Apex Court in answer to contention (A) held that the
provisions of Para 2 of the Tenth Schedule are valid and do not violate
any rights or freedom under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution.
The provisions are salutary and are intended to strengthen the fabric of
Indian parliamentary democracy by curbing unprincipled and unethical
political defections. In this backdrop, the vesting of adjudicatory
functions in the Speakers/Chairmen to hold a pivotal position in the
scheme of Parliamentary democracy and as guardians of the rights and
privileges of the House become all the more important. In the case of
Kihoto Hollohan (supra), the Apex Court upheld the vestiture of power
to adjudicate questions under the Tenth Schedule in such constitutional
functionaries as they are expected to and do take far-reaching decisions
in the functioning of Parliamentary democracy. In that legal backdrop,
72
the threshold for examining the decision of the Hon’ble Speaker under
judicial review has been limited to infirmities based on violation of
constitutional mandates, mala fides, non-compliance of rules of natural
justice and perversity by the Constitution Bench in Kihoto Hollohan
(supra).
53. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
opinion that the findings of the Hon’ble Speaker on each of the four
points are unsustainable on grounds of violation of constitutional
mandates and perversity for the reasons recorded hereinabove.
54. Reference to the 1986 Rules, which are directory in nature to
invalidate the disqualification proceedings are equally misplaced in the
light of the decisions rendered in the case of Ravi S.Naik (supra) and
also Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra).
55. We, therefore, hold that the impugned decision of the Hon’ble
Speaker is unsustainable on the grounds of judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India as laid down in the case of Kihoto
Hollohan (supra) and is accordingly set aside.
56. Further, on the basis of the facts and circumstances and the
reasoning recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view
that the respondent No.2 incurred disqualification upon having contested
the election as a candidate set up by the INC party for the Parliamentary
73
elections to the Lok Sabha in the year 2024, despite being a member of
BRS party.
57. The next question to be answered is the date on which respondent
No.2 incurred disqualification.
58. Respondent No.2 filed his nomination as a candidate for INC
party on 23.04.2024 for contesting election to the Secunderabad Lok
Sabha constituency despite being a member of BRS. Therefore,
respondent No.2 voluntarily gave up the membership of BRS party as
per para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule read with Article 191(2) of the
Constitution of India on 23.04.2024.
59. In Subhash Desai (supra), the Apex Court dealt with the issue
that the disqualification relates back to the date of defection. The
findings at paras 209 and 210 in the said decision by the Constitution
Bench are extracted hereunder:
209. Aggrieved by the order of the Speaker, the disqualified MLAs
approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The MLAs
who had tendered their resignations argued that the Speaker did not have
the jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitions for their disqualification
because they had already resigned and were therefore not members of the
House who could be disqualified. Relying on Rajendra Singh Rana
[Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya, (2007) 4 SCC 270] ,
this Court rejected this submission and held that the Speaker has the
jurisdiction to determine the disqualification petitions because
disqualification relates to the date when the act constituting defection is
alleged to have been committed : (Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil case
[Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Karnataka Legislative Assembly, (2020) 2
SCC 595] , SCC p. 633, para 93)
“93. As such, there is no doubt that the disqualification
relates to the date when such act of defection takes place. The
tendering of resignation does not have a bearing on the
jurisdiction of the Speaker in this regard. At this point we may
allude to D. Sanjeevayya v. Election Tribunal [D. Sanjeevayya
v. Election Tribunal, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 46 : AIR 1967 SC
74
1211] , wherein this Court has held that : (AIR pp. 1213-14,
para 5)
‘5. It is, therefore, not permissible, in the present case, to
interpret Section 150 of the Act in isolation without reference
to Part III of the Act which prescribes the machinery for calling
in question the election of a returned candidate. When an
election petition has been referred to a Tribunal by the Election
Commission and the former is seized of the matter, the petition
has to be disposed of according to law. The Tribunal has to
adjudge at the conclusion of the proceeding whether the
returned candidate has or has not committed any corrupt
practice at the election and secondly, it has to decide whether
the second respondent should or should not be declared to have
been duly elected. A returned candidate cannot get rid of an
election petition filed against him by resigning his seat in the
legislature, whatever the reason for his resignation may be.’
Therefore, the aforesaid principle may be adopted accordingly,
wherein the taint of disqualification does not vaporise, on
resignation, provided the defection has happened prior to the
date of resignation.”
(emphasis supplied)
210. The decision in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil [Shrimanth Balasaheb
Patil v. Karnataka Legislative Assembly, (2020) 2 SCC 595] applied the
principle that disqualification relates to the date on which the act of
defection takes place to mean that acts or events subsequent to the
commission of the conduct prohibited under the Tenth Schedule, do not
have an exculpatory effect. In other words, subsequent acts or events do
not have the effect of curing such conduct or releasing the actor from the
consequences which follow. This is consistent with the decision in
Rajendra Singh Rana [Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya,
(2007) 4 SCC 270] . Mr Shinde's appointment is therefore not barred by
Article 164(1-B) of the Constitution.
60. In the case of Rajendra Singh Rana (supra), the Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court found that the petition seeking disqualification
of thirteen members had been allowed to drag on till disposal of the said
case, though they had failed to establish defence or answer to the charge
of defection under the Tenth Schedule. The term of Legislative
Assembly after the elections in February 2002 was coming to an end on
expiry of five years. Remand of the proceedings to the Speaker would
mean that the proceeding itself may become infructuous. Therefore, the
75
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the thirteen members stood
disqualified with effect from 27.08.2003 in terms of Article 191(2) read
with para 2 of the Tenth Schedule.
61. The present case is one where the disqualification proceedings
have lingered on for more than one and half years and by now almost
three years term of the Legislative Assembly has expired. Therefore, the
matter need not be remanded to the Hon’ble Speaker for taking a fresh
decision. In such circumstances, this Court in exercise of powers of
judicial review deems it just and proper to declare that respondent No.2
stands disqualified from 23.04.2024 as a Member of Telangana
Legislative Assembly having contested as a candidate set up by the INC
party for Secunderabad Constituency in the Lok Sabha elections 2024
despite being a member of BRS party. As a result thereof, the said seat
is rendered vacant.
W.P.No.8647 of 2026:
62. Disqualification petition No.1 of 2024 from which W.P.No.8647
of 2026 arises against the same respondent No.2, was preferred by a
Member of the Telangana Legislative Assembly who was elected on
BRS ticket. The said disqualification petition was filed on 18.03.2024
seeking a declaration that respondent No.2 has incurred disqualification
from his membership of the Legislative Assembly under para 2(1)(a)
76
and 2(1)(b) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India read with
Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 6(1) and (2) of the
1986 Rules. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.2 was elected as
Member of Legislative Assembly on BRS ticket in the General Elections
2023. He has by overt conduct and public action voluntarily given up his
membership of the BRS and changed his allegiance to the INC party.
The petitioner, in particular, alleged that copy of the photograph of
respondent No.2 and his meeting with AICC In charge Deepa Das
Munshi along with Sri Mallu Batti Vikramarka and Telangana Pradesh
Congress Committee President Sri A.Revanth Reddy – Ex.P.3 and the
copy of the photograph of respondent No.2 joining the INC party –
Ex.P.4, show that respondent No.2 had joined the INC party. In the list
of candidates nominated for Lok Sabha elections of 2024 published by
the INC party on 21.03.2024, the name of respondent No.2 is reflected
at serial No.46 – Ex.P.5. The affidavit filed by respondent No.2 for
contesting the Lok Sabha election in Form 26 as a candidate set up by
the INC party dated 23.04.2024 is Ex.P.6. Ex.P.7 is the copy of the
result sheet uploaded in Election Commission of India website.
Thereafter, Exs.P.10 to P.30 starting from 05.05.2024 till 07.09.2025 are
Facebook posts and media reports showing respondent No.2 attending
the INC party meeting and campaigning as a candidate for INC party,
77
press statements to T.V. channels, video footage in T.V. channels along
with the articles published in the print media, substantiating the
allegations. Respondent No.2 filed the counter affidavit on 19.01.2026
maintaining that he is bona fide member of BRS and continued to
adhere to the party discipline. He has not resigned the BRS party or
enrolled in the INC party. He has not been expelled from the BRS party.
His political activities outside the Legislative Assembly do not meet the
threshold requirement of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
Respondent No.2 also contended that the Hon’ble Speaker’s authority
was confined to the conduct within the Legislative sphere and not to the
political activities of MLAs outside the House. The petitioner filed a
rejoinder and additional documents. Thereafter, petitioner was examined
and cross-examined as P.W.1 and he exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.30. The
respondent No.2 did not enter the witness box nor examined any witness
on his behalf. Detailed submissions and written submissions were
submitted by both the parties. The Hon’ble Speaker in the instant
disqualification petition framed five issues for determination which are
as under:
1. Whether the Speaker’s jurisdiction as a Tribunal under Paragraph 6
of the Tenth Schedule is constitutionally confined to conduct having
a direct nexus with legislative proceedings within the House, and if
so, whether the present Petition, founded substantially on conduct
external to the Telangana Legislative Assembly, is maintainable?
2. Whether the Respondent’s conduct including meeting INC leaders,
participating in the alleged ‘joining’ ceremony, and contesting the
Lok Sabha election on the INC ticket constitutes “voluntarily giving
78
up membership” of the BRS within the meaning of Paragraph
2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule?
3. What is the evidentiary value of the material placed on record by the
Petitioner, and whether the Petitioner has discharged the heavy
burden of proof required to establish disqualification?
4. What is the legal effect of the BRS Party’s silence, continued
official recognition of the Respondent as a BRS member, and the
absence of any internal disciplinary action against the respondent?
And
5. Whether the Petitioner has complied with the mandatory procedural
requirements under the Defection Rules?
63. It is important to mention here that points No.1, 3 and 4 in
Disqualification Petition No.4 of 2024 are the same in the instant
Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2024.
64. Point No.2 in Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2024 refers to the
respondent No.2’s conduct including meeting the INC party leaders,
participating in the alleged joining ceremony and contesting the Lok
Sabha election on the INC party ticket as constituting voluntarily giving
up membership of BRS within the meaning of para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth
Schedule. This point also is substantially whether respondent No.2’s
conduct constitutes voluntarily giving up membership of BRS within the
meaning of para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule as in Disqualification
Petition No.4 of 2024 (point No.2).
65. One additional point, i.e., point No.4 was framed by the Hon’ble
Speaker in the instant Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2024 as to the
legal effect of BRS Party’s silence, continued official recognition of
respondent No.2 as a BRS member and the absence of any internal
disciplinary action against respondent No.2.
79
66. Findings of the Hon’ble Speaker on each of the points are against
the petitioner and in favour of respondent No.2. The findings on points
1, 3 and 5 are also on the same lines.
67. In answer to point No.3, the Hon’ble Speaker has also recorded
that the annexures produced by the petitioner primarily consisting of
newspaper clippings and media extracts are not signed or verified in the
manner required by Rule 6(6) and (7) of the 1986 Rules which mandates
verification in the manner laid down in CPC. Therefore, they are
inadmissible. That newspaper reports and media footage are only
hearsay evidence and cannot by themselves prove the facts alleged. To
support this finding, reliance was placed on Samant N. Balkrishna vs.
George Fernandez
22
and Laxmi Raj Shetty vs. State of Tamil
Nadu
23
. The Hon’ble Speaker has referred to the cross-examination of
the petitioner where he has stated that he had no personal knowledge of
the alleged joining ceremony. Despite his lack of personal knowledge,
the petitioner failed to examine a single primary witness such as
Reporter, Editor, Publisher or any other media professional who could
verify the contents of the media reports. Therefore, in the absence of
such testimony, the secondary material remain unverified hearsay,
22
(1969) 3 SCC 238
23
(1988) 3 SCC 319
80
which is legally insufficient to displace a democratically elected
representative.
68. Point No.4 framed in Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2024 is on
the legal effect of the BRS party’s silence, continued official recognition
of respondent No.2 as a BRS member and the absence of any internal
disciplinary action against respondent No.2. The Hon’ble Speaker has
recorded that the Leader of the BRS party has not communicated any
deletion of respondent No.2’s name from the list of its members nor
intimated any alleged defection within the time contemplated by the
1986 Rules. This casts serious doubt on the maintainability of the
petition and reinforces the contention that the petitioner is not competent
to initiate the present proceedings. The Hon’ble Speaker has also
recorded that respondent No.2 has successfully demonstrated that he
continues to be recognized as a BRS member in the official records and
has adhered to all the party directions within the Legislative Assembly
and has not formally joined any other political party. The petitioner has
failed to establish that respondent No.2 has, by clear, categorical and
unambiguous conduct, voluntarily given up his membership of the BRS
party. Therefore, the irresistible inference of defection sought by the
petitioner cannot be safely drawn. The Tenth Schedule is intended to
protect the integrity of the House and not to regulate the external
81
political choices of its members where those choices do not destabilize
the legislature. Given the respondent No.2’s continued adherence to
party discipline within the House and the lack of action by the BRS
party, the grounds of disqualification are not met.
69. In respect of point No.5 as to whether the petitioner has complied
with the mandatory procedural requirements under the 1986 Rules, the
Hon’ble Speaker has held that the procedural defects under Rule 6(6)
and (7) regarding the lack of verification of each of the annexures are
considered fatal to the maintainability of the petition. Even if the
procedural lapses were treated as curable irregularities, the substantive
case fails because unverified media reports cannot serve as a substitute
for the irresistible inference required to prove a voluntary abandonment
of membership. In answer to point No.5, the Hon’ble Speaker in the
present case also relied upon Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar (supra) and
Ravinder Singh (supra), as in the other Disqualification Petition No.4
of 2024.
70. This Court, hereinafter, proceeds to deal with the findings
recorded on each of the points by the Hon’ble Speaker. This Court finds
that the reasons and findings of the Hon’ble Speaker on point No.1 are
same as in answer to point No.1 in Disqualification Petition No.4 of
2024, which this Court has adequately dealt with in the case of the
82
petitioner in W.P.No.8409 of 2026 and are reiterated. The conception
that disqualification under para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule for the
conduct outside the House and beyond the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble
Speaker are not in consonance with the settled legal position as laid
down in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) and also in the other
decisions referred to by this Court while dealing point No.1 in
W.P.No.8409 of 2026. Therefore, reasons recorded by this Court in
answer to the findings of the Hon’ble Speaker on point No.1 in
W.P.No.8409 of 2026 shall apply with full force to the present case.
71. Point No.2 framed by the Hon’ble Speaker questions the conduct
of respondent No.2 in meeting the INC leaders, participating in the
alleged joining ceremony and contesting the Lok Sabha election on the
INC ticket constitutes voluntarily giving up of membership of BRS
within the meaning of para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule.
72. It is the case of the petitioner that the sequence of conduct of
respondent No.2 from 15.03.2024 when he met the Hon’ble Chief
Minister along with other party leaders and was garlanded with a tri-
colour Kanduva; the subsequent conduct including the one of filing
nomination as a candidate for Lok Sabha elections 2024 as an INC party
candidate and his overt acts of campaigning as an INC party candidate
against the candidate set up by the BRS party and statements made on
83
Facebook and TV channels cumulatively amount to voluntarily giving
up of membership of BRS by respondent No.2 within the meaning of
para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule. On the part of respondent No.2 a
plea has been taken that contesting Lok Sabha election while being an
MLA is not constitutionally prohibited on which disqualification can be
incurred. He continues to be a member of BRS party and no disciplinary
action has been taken against him. That the petitioner’s case is based on
hearsay and media reports. To support this plea, respondent No.2 has not
produced any witness. The Hon’ble Speaker held that respondent No.2’s
conduct taken in totality does not give rise to irresistible inference of
voluntarily giving up of BRS membership required under para 2(1)(a) of
the Tenth Schedule. It is pertinent to mention here that Disqualification
Petition No.1 of 2024 was filed on 18.03.2024 alleging the acts of
respondent No.2 in formally meeting the Hon’ble Chief Minister
belonging to INC party and other party leaders thereby showed that he
has switched to allegiance to the INC party based upon the newspaper
report. Nomination was filed on 23.04.2024 (Ex.P.6) by respondent
No.2 as a candidate of INC party for Lok Sabha elections 2024 from
Secunderabad Constituency. The AICC press release dated 21.03.2024
showing the selected list of the candidates for the Lok Sabha elections
2024 wherein the name of respondent No.2 was at serial No.46, the
84
relevant paper clippings and the evidence of the statements of
respondent No.2 in the interviews given to news channels were brought
on record later by way of an additional affidavit. The petitioner had
referred to several media reports alleging campaigning by respondent
No.2 against the BRS candidate and professing himself as INC
candidate for 2024 Lok Sabha elections. It is thus evident that
irrespective of media reports relied upon by the petitioner in this case,
the factum of filing nomination as a Member of INC party by
respondent No.2 including the affidavit, Ex.P.6, were brought to the
notice of the Hon’ble Speaker during the course of disqualification
proceedings. In a disqualification petition, the parties to the lis are not in
adversarial position (see Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra)). The
Hon’ble Speaker has an independent constitutional duty de hors the
pleadings to enquire whether the conduct of the member outside the
House amounts to voluntarily giving up membership of the party from
which he is elected. The proposition in law is held in the case of Kihoto
Hollohan (supra), Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) and other
decisions which have been referred to in the discussion made in
W.P.No.8409 of 2026. Therefore, the act of filing of the nomination as a
Member of INC party on 23.04.2024 (Ex.P.6) for contesting the
Parliamentary Lok Sabha elections 2024 by respondent No.2 is
85
sufficient to hold that respondent No.2 had voluntarily given up his
membership of the BRS party. Respondent No.2 has not denied the fact
that he had contested the Lok Sabha elections of 2024 as an INC
candidate, despite being a member of BRS party. In similar set of facts
in the case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra), it was held that
contesting elections as an independent candidate while being a member
of a political party amounts to defection which incurred disqualification
to continue as a member of the Legislative Assembly elected from the
said political party. The question of proof would arise only if the
allegations remain undenied.
73. Point No.3 is couched in the same language as point No.3 in
Disqualification Petition No.4 of 2024 in W.P.No.8409 of 2026. This
Court while dealing with the said point in the connected case
categorically held that Ex.P.3 therein – Affidavit filed in statutory Form
26 by respondent No.2 on 23.04.2024 before the Returning Officer as an
INC candidate for Lok Sabha 08-Secunderabad Parliamentary
Constituency in the year 2024 is not denied by respondent No.2. The
copy of Form 26 – affidavit filed by respondent No.2 on 23.04.2024
before the Returning Officer as an INC candidate for Lok Sabha was
filed as Ex.P.6 in Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2024. It constitutes
unimpeachable evidence to hold that respondent No.2 had incurred
86
disqualification within the meaning of Para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth
Schedule on having contested as an INC candidate for Parliamentary
Elections 2024 despite being a member of BRS party. Therefore, de hors
proof of any other media reports, this act alone would constitute the
ingredients to hold that respondent No.2 had voluntarily given up his
membership from the BRS party. Reliance placed by the Hon’ble
Speaker on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samant N.
Balkrishna (supra) is misplaced as it was rendered in respect of election
petition alleging corrupt practices under the Representation of People
Act, 1951. The reference to the rules of pleadings in a case of election
petition therein do not apply to the case on hand, which deals with
disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule read with Article
191(2) of the Constitution of India. Reliance placed by the Hon’ble
Speaker on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Raj
Shetty (supra) is equally misplaced as the said case relates to a bank
clerk committing robbery and murdering the Bank’s Officer and is no
way connected to the facts of the instant case which deals with
disqualification of the elected representative. The findings of the
Hon’ble Speaker on this point therefore suffer from perversity. The
reasoning recorded in answer to this point in the connected writ petition,
i.e., W.P.No.8409 of 2026, therefore, applies to the present case also.
87
74. Point No.4 as to what is the legal effect of the BRS party’s
silence, continued official recognition of respondent No.2 as BRS
member and the absence of any internal disciplinary action against
respondent No.2 which was additionally framed in Disqualification
Petition No.1 of 2024 has incidentally been also dealt with by the
Hon’ble Speaker while answering point No.2 in Disqualification
Petition No.4 of 2024. The Hon’ble Speaker has taken note of
countervailing facts that BRS party has not taken any disciplinary action
against respondent No.2 who continues to sit and participate to vote as a
member of BRS party at para 7.4 in Disqualification Petition No.4 of
2024. The reasoning recorded by this Court while dealing point No.2 in
Disqualification Petition No.4 of 2024 applies to the facts of the present
case.
75. On point No.5, whether the petitioner has complied with the
mandatory procedural requirements under the 1986 Rules, once again
this Court has underlined the legal position as regards the directory
nature of the 1986 Rules by referring to the decision of the Apex Court
in Ravi S.Naik (supra) and reiterated in the case of Dr. Mahachandra
Prasad Singh (supra) in answer to point No.4 in W.P.No.8409 of 2026.
The reasoning and findings of the Hon’ble Speaker on this point are in
teeth of the position in law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
88
Ravi S.Naik (surpa) and reiterated in the case of Dr. Mahachandra
Prasad Singh (supra) and further followed in the case of R.Bhoopathi
Reddy (supra). Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and
the reasons recorded hereinabove, respondent No.2 had voluntarily
given up his membership of the BRS party in terms of Para 2(1)(a) of
the Tenth Schedule read with Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India
having contested as a candidate set up by the INC party for
Secunderabad Constituency in the Lok Sabha elections, 2024, despite
being a member of BRS party. Therefore, the disqualification of
respondent No.2 would relate back to 23.04.2024 when he filed his
nomination as a candidate set up by the INC party to the Lok Sabha
elections, 2024 from Secunderabad Constituency.
76. The contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel for
respondent No.2 in support of the Hon’ble Speaker’s finding do not
merit acceptance. The emphasis on the different dates alleging conduct
on part of respondent No.2 in the disqualification petition filed on
18.03.2024 and reliance on media reports there being no amendment to
disqualification petition, would not save the explicit conduct of
respondent No.2 in contesting the Lok Sabha elections 2024 from the
INC party, despite being a member of BRS party. In the face of Ex.P.5 –
the list of selected candidates for the Lok Sabha elections 2024 dated
89
21.03.2024 and Ex.P.6 - Affidavit in Form 26 dated 23.04.2024, and
Ex.P.7 - result sheet issued by the Election Commission of India, dated
04.06.2024, the conduct of respondent No.2 would amount to
voluntarily giving up his membership of BRS party by contesting as
INC candidate. These facts and supporting documents were produced
before the Hon’ble Speaker during the course of disqualification
proceedings and have been disregarded in breach of constitutional
obligations upon the Hon’ble Speaker who is required to enquire and
determine independently whether respondent No.2 incurred
disqualification by his conduct outside the House by voluntarily giving
up membership of BRS party. As recorded hereinbefore, the Hon’ble
Speaker committed a serious jurisdictional error in holding that the
conduct of a member outside the House in such a case would not fall
within the domain of the Hon’ble Speaker’s power under para 2(1)(a) of
the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Speaker
misread the law in this regard and ignored the judgments relied on by
the petitioner in Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) and
R.Bhoopathi Reddy (supra) in particular on similar facts.
77. The disqualification petitions are not guided by strict rules of
procedure or evidence. Therefore, respondent No.2 cannot draw mileage
by the statements given by the petitioner in his cross-examination as
90
pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2. In a
non-adversarial proceeding like this, silence of the party in question or
lack of internal disciplinary action by it and the subsequent conduct of
the member would not efface the disqualification incurred by respondent
No.2 by openly contesting as a candidate of INC party for Lok Sabha
elections, 2024, despite having been elected as a member of BRS party
in the Legislative Assembly.
78. The object of the Tenth Schedule is to curb the evil of political
defections motivated by lure of office or other similar considerations
which endanger the foundations of our democracy.
Conclusion:
79. The decision of the Hon’ble Speaker in both the Disqualification
Petition Nos.4 of 2024 and 1 of 2024 are set aside and the writ petitions
are allowed. It is declared that respondent No.2 stands disqualified from
23.04.2024 as a Member of Telangana Legislative Assembly in terms of
para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule read with Article 191(2) of the
Constitution of India, having contested as a candidate set up by the INC
party for Secunderabad Constituency in the Lok Sabha elections, 2024,
despite being a member of BRS party. As a result thereof, the said seat
is rendered vacant.
91
80. A copy of this order be communicated to the Secretary to the
Hon’ble Speaker, Telangana Legislative Assembly and also to the
Election Commission of India.
81. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications
pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
18.09.2026
Note: LR copy be marked
(By order)
vs/pln
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....