The Telangana High Court set aside the Hon'ble Speaker's dismissal of disqualification petitions, holding that contesting Lok Sabha elections from a different party while being an MLA constitutes 'voluntarily giving up membership' under para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule read with Article 191(2) of the Constitution, thereby rendering the legislative seat vacant from the date of nomination filing.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitions challenge the Hon'ble Speaker's order dated 11.03.2026 dismissing Disqualification Petition No.4 of 2024 (filed in W.P.No.8409 of 2026) and Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2024 (filed in W.P.No.8647 of 2026). Both petitions sought disqualification of respondent No.2, Padi Kaushik Reddy, from the Telangana Legislative Assembly for allegedly voluntarily giving up his membership of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) party by contesting the 2024 Lok Sabha elections as an Indian National Congress (INC) candidate.
Key Facts
- In December 2023, respondent No.2 was elected as an MLA representing the BRS party from the 60-Khairatabad Constituency (Ex.P.2: Gazette Notification No.44 dated 04.12.2023)
- On 23.04.2024, respondent No.2 filed his nomination as a candidate set up by the INC party for the Lok Sabha elections from the 08-Secunderabad Parliamentary Constituency (Ex.P.3: affidavit dated 23.04.2024)
- Despite being an elected BRS member, respondent No.2 campaigned against the BRS party candidate in the Lok Sabha elections
- Disqualification Petition No.4 of 2024 (W.P.No.8409 of 2026) was filed on 01.07.2024 by Alleti Maheshwar Reddy (BJP MLA) seeking declaration that respondent No.2 was disqualified for having voluntarily given up BRS membership by contesting Parliamentary elections from INC party
- Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2024 (W.P.No.8647 of 2026) was filed on 18.03.2024 by another BRS MLA seeking disqualification on similar grounds
- On 31.07.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2353-54 of 2025 directed the Hon'ble Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions within three months (Padi Kaushik Reddy vs. State of Telangana)
- Respondent No.2 filed his counter affidavit on 19.01.2026, maintaining he remained a bona fide BRS member and had not formally joined the INC party
- The Hon'ble Speaker dismissed both disqualification petitions on 11.03.2026 by the impugned order
Procedural History
- 18.03.2024: Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2024 filed (W.P.No.8647 of 2026)
- 01.07.2024: Disqualification Petition No.4 of 2024 filed (W.P.No.8409 of 2026)
- 31.07.2025: Supreme Court directs Speaker to decide petitions within three months
- 19.01.2026: Respondent No.2 files counter affidavit
- 11.03.2026: Hon'ble Speaker dismisses both disqualification petitions (impugned order)
- 18.09.2026: Present judgment pronounced
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the Speaker's order dated 11.03.2026, declaration that respondent No.2 incurred disqualification from 23.04.2024 (date of nomination filing), and that the legislative seat be rendered vacant.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (i) Whether the Hon'ble Speaker's jurisdiction 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 petitions founded substantially on external conduct are maintainable; (ii) Whether respondent No.2'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; (iii) Whether the petitioner discharged the burden of proof required to establish disqualification; and (iv) Whether the petitioner complied with mandatory procedural requirements under the 1986 Rules.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned Senior Counsel Sri K.Vivek Reddy (for W.P.No.8409) and Sri Gandra Mohan Rao (for W.P.No.8647) argued that contesting parliamentary elections from another party's ticket amounts to voluntarily giving up membership under para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule, relying on Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council [(2004) 8 SCC 747] and R.Bhoopathi Reddy v. Chairman, Telangana State Legislative Council [(2019) 5 ALT 241 (DB)]. They contended that once facts are admitted (as respondent No.2 did not deny filing nomination as INC candidate), the burden of proof shifts and no further evidence is required. They asserted that the Speaker erred by considering extraneous facts like BRS party's continued recognition and lack of disciplinary action, which are relevant only under para 2(1)(b). They emphasized that procedural defects under Rule 6(6) and 6(7) of the 1986 Rules are curable and do not affect the Speaker's substantive duty to decide disqualification petitions.
For the Respondent
Learned Counsel Sri A.Tulsi Raj Gokul (for respondent No.1 in both WPs) and Learned Senior Counsel Sri A.Venkatesh and Sri Gourav Agrawal (for respondent No.2) argued that the Speaker's jurisdiction under the Tenth Schedule is confined to conduct within the House, and external electoral choices do not affect legislative stability. They contended that contesting Lok Sabha elections is not constitutionally prohibited for MLAs and cannot be treated as automatic defection absent explicit constitutional provision. They maintained that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof as reliance on media reports and photographs constituted inadmissible hearsay. They stressed that the 1986 Rules are mandatory, and non-verification of annexures under Rule 6(6) and 6(7) is fatal to the petition's maintainability, citing Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar v. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar [(2009) 9 SCC 310] and Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh [(2000) 8 SCC 191].
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by framing the judicial review parameters under Article 226, relying on Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu [(1992) Supp (2) SCC 651] at para 111, which limits review to infirmities based on violation of constitutional mandates, mala fides, non-compliance with natural justice, and perversity.
On Point No.1 (jurisdiction), the Court held: "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 is the proper authority for disqualifications arising from a member's external status. 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." The Court found this finding violated constitutional mandate under Article 191(2) read with paras 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b).
On Point No.2 (voluntary giving up of membership), the Court stated: "The case of Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) holds that contesting a parliamentary election on another party's ticket amounts to voluntarily giving up membership under para 2(1)(a). Paras 20 and 23 of that judgment are extracted hereunder..." The Court emphasized that when facts are admitted (as respondent No.2 did not deny filing nomination as INC candidate), the question of burden of proof does not arise, citing Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) at para 19 and Jagjit Singh v. State of Haryana [(2006) 11 SCC 1]. It held that the Speaker's conclusion that the conduct did not give rise to an irresistible inference of defection was perverse in light of admitted facts.
On Point No.3 (evidentiary value), the Court noted that Ex.P.3 (affidavit dated 23.04.2024 filed by respondent No.2 as INC candidate) and Ex.P.4 (Form 7A showing INC affiliation) were statutory documents not denied by respondent No.2. It rejected the Speaker's reliance on Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India [(1994) Supp (2) SCC 641] and Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly [(2020) 2 SCC 595] as misplaced, as those cases dealt with election petitions under statutory enactments, not constitutional disqualification proceedings.
On Point No.4 (procedural compliance), the Court held that the 1986 Rules are directory in nature, not mandatory, relying on Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh (supra) at para 16 and Ravi S. Naik (supra) at para 18. It stated: "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." The Court found the Speaker's reliance on procedural defects to dismiss the petition was perverse.
The Court concluded: "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 Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court set aside the Hon'ble Speaker's order dated 11.03.2026 in Disqualification Petition Nos.4 of 2024 and 1 of 2024. It declared that respondent No.2, Padi Kaushik Reddy, stands disqualified from 23.04.2024 as a Member of the 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 the Secunderabad Constituency in the Lok Sabha elections, 2024, despite being a member of BRS party. As a result, the said seat is rendered vacant. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdictional Boundaries of the Speaker's Authority
The judgment clarifies that the Speaker's power under the Tenth Schedule is limited to conduct affecting legislative stability. External political activities, such as contesting parliamentary elections, fall within the Governor's jurisdiction under Article 191(1), not the Speaker's under Article 191(2). Practitioners must now challenge Speaker's orders on external conduct by demonstrating lack of impact on House functioning.
Burden of Proof When Facts Are Admitted
Where a respondent does not deny key facts (e.g., filing nomination as another party's candidate), the burden of proof shifts entirely, and no additional evidence is required to establish disqualification. The judgment reinforces that 'admission is the best evidence' in defection proceedings, eliminating the need for witness testimony when conduct is undisputed.
Directory Nature of the 1986 Rules
The judgment affirms that procedural defects under the 1986 Rules (such as lack of verification under Rule 6(6) and 6(7)) do not invalidate a disqualification petition or affect the Speaker's substantive duty to decide the matter. This prevents technical objections from derailing substantive inquiries into defection, aligning with the constitutional objective of curbing unprincipled defections.
Disqualification Relates Back to Date of Act
Following Subhash Desai v. State of Maharashtra [(2024) 2 SCC 719], disqualification under para 2(1)(a) relates back to the date of the defection act (here, filing nomination as INC candidate on 23.04.2024), not the date of the Speaker's decision. This ensures legislative seats are vacated promptly upon defection, preventing prolonged occupancy by disqualified members.
