Alleti Maheshwar Reddy & Anr. 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 & Anr.

2025 INSC 912

1992 Supp (2) SCC 651

(2020) 2 SCC 595

(2004) 8 SCC 747

2019 (5) ALT 241 (DB) (TS)

2009 (3) ALT 324 (DB)

(2006) 11 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 1375

1994 Supp (2) SCC 641

(2024) 2 SCC 719

(2020) 20 SCC 209

2025 INSC 201

(2020) 1 SCC 1

(1996) 2 SCC 353

(2009) 9 SCC 310

(2000) 8 SCC 191

2013 (2) ALT 310 (DB)

(2007) 4 SCC 270

(2013) 11 SCC 794

AIR 1965 SC 1892

(2016) 8 SCC 1

(2009) 10 SCC 170

(1969) 3 SCC 238

(1988) 3 SCC 319

(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.

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.

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:

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 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^{11.2025 INSC 912}). 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:

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 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.

On behalf of the petitioners, the following propositions have been raised:

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:

(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 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.

Sl.No. Date Description of document Ex.No.

06.11.2023 Copy of Form 26 of the respondent No.2 P1

24.04.2024 Copy of the Form 26 – Affidavit filed by the P6 respondent No.2 for Lok Sabha Election

respondent No.2 in W.P.No.8409 of 2026:

(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 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).

respondent No.2 in W.P.No.8647 of 2026:

(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 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.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.8409 of 2026 in his reply has, inter alia, made the following submissions:

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^{1616.2013 (2) ALT 310 (DB)}).

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)).

vi) Voting for candidates proposed by other political parties in Legislative Council elections (Mandadi Satyanarayana Reddy (supra)).

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.

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.

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.

- That constitutional courts have declared defection even when the Hon’ble Speaker refused to disqualify a candidate (Rajendra Singh Rana (supra)).

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)).

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.

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^{1919.AIR 1965 SC 1892} rendered by a Constitution Bench on Article 191 of the Constitution of 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.

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 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.

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:

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:

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:

ii) Mala fides

iii) Non-compliance of the rules of natural justice; and

iv) Perversity.

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.

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.

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 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:

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^{2020.(2016) 8 SCC 1} cited by the learned counsel for the parties. Point No.1 has been answered in the following manner.

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:

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 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 party. Paras 20 and 23 containing the opinion of the Apex Court are extracted hereunder:

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 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.

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).

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 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.

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 referred to while dealing with the findings rendered on point No.1 by the Hon’ble Speaker.

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.

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 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:

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.

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.

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 Assembly Constituency from BRS. This fact has not been denied by respondent No.2.

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.

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. 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 Speaker are untenable on the ground that the petitioner relied on public documents and gazettes. Sections 80 and 81 of BSA read as under:

In the case of M. Siddiq (supra), the Constitution Bench at para 861 held as under:

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 membership of the original political party. Para 70 thereof is quoted hereunder:

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

Reliance placed by the Hon’ble Speaker in the case of Udey Chand v. Surat Singh^{2121.(2009) 10 SCC 170} 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 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.

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.

Point No.4 deals with the question whether the petitioner has complied with the mandatory procedural requirements under the 1986 Rules.

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.

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.

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.

In order to appreciate the applicability of the 1986 Rules, Rules 3, 6 and 7 thereof are extracted hereunder:

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) 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.

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 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 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.

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:

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:

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 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:

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, 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).

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.

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).

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.

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 elections to the Lok Sabha in the year 2024, despite being a member of BRS party.

The next question to be answered is the date on which respondent No.2 incurred disqualification.

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.

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:

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 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.

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.

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) 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, 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:

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.

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).

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.

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.

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^{2222.(1969) 3 SCC 238} and Laxmi Raj Shetty vs. State of Tamil Nadu^{2323.(1988) 3 SCC 319}. 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, which is legally insufficient to displace a democratically elected representative.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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^.

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.

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.

There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.