The Speaker’s decision dismissing petitions seeking disqualification of ten BRS MLAs has sparked debate over the interpretation of the Anti-Defection Law. The BRS is preparing to challenge the ruling in court, arguing that the legislators effectively joined the Congress party
Published Date – 14 March 2026, 10:36 PM
Hyderabad: The Speaker’s verdict on petitions seeking disqualification of ten MLAs who allegedly defected from the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) has triggered a political and legal debate, with critics questioning whether the ruling could redefine the interpretation of the Anti-Defection Law.
According to the ruling delivered by Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar, there was insufficient evidence to take punitive action against the ten BRS MLAs whose defection had created a stir in Telangana politics.
The controversy also centres on the case of Danam Nagender, who was elected to the Assembly on a BRS ticket. The ruling suggested that if an MLA elected on one party’s ticket contests a parliamentary election on behalf of another party, such an act may not automatically fall within the purview of the Anti-Defection Law. The Speaker’s interpretation has generated intense debate among legal and political observers.
An examination of the key points in the Speaker’s verdict has raised questions about how the law may be interpreted in such cases. The petitioners had alleged that ten MLAs elected under the BRS party’s ‘Car’ symbol later joined the Indian National Congress. However, the ruling observed that there was no direct physical evidence or personal testimony establishing that the MLAs had formally joined the Congress party at a specific time and place.
The verdict also noted that the petitions were largely based on media reports. According to the ruling, news reports appearing in newspapers or television clippings could not be treated as authoritative evidence and may amount only to hearsay unless supported by independent corroboration. The Speaker cited Supreme Court of India rulings while making this observation.
The Speaker also pointed out that the BRS had not initiated disciplinary action against the MLAs in question. The ruling noted the absence of show-cause notices and stated that the individuals concerned had not been expelled from the party.
The verdict also pointed out that the MLAs continue to be listed as BRS members in Assembly records and bulletins. It was also observed that there was no evidence indicating that they had violated the party whip within the Assembly.
Contesting as MP may not amount to defection
The ruling held that an MLA belonging to one political party contesting a Lok Sabha election on behalf of another party is not expressly prohibited under the Constitution. The Speaker stated that such an act cannot automatically be treated as defection.
The verdict also addressed the issue of MLAs draping Congress scarves. According to submissions made by the respondents, the scarf was only a tricoloured cloth without any specific party symbol. The Speaker’s ruling referred to the petitioner’s own submission that similar scarves are used in various contexts.
“The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India constitutes a stringent provision for the removal of a democratically elected representative. Its application necessitates irrefutable and unequivocal evidence,” the Speaker observed.
The petitions were ultimately dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
Scope for judicial review
Legal experts point out that decisions delivered by the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule are not entirely beyond judicial scrutiny. In matters related to defection, the Speaker functions as a tribunal, and courts retain the power to review such decisions.
Members of the BRS Legal Cell stated that the Telangana High Court may examine both the delay in the Speaker’s decision-making process and the legal merits of the verdict.
The BRS is preparing to challenge the Speaker’s ruling in court. Following the verdict, the immediate threat of disqualification facing the ten MLAs who shifted their allegiance to the Congress party appears to have been temporarily averted.
Legal experts note that while the Speaker enjoys certain privileges within the Legislative Assembly, such protections do not extend to judicial proceedings where evidentiary standards are paramount.
The BRS legal team plans to place before the court material already available in the public domain. This may include photographs and video footage that show the MLAs joining the Congress party in the presence of the Chief Minister.
They are also expected to cite posts shared on the Congress party’s official social media accounts welcoming the legislators. In addition, the petitioners may present records suggesting that the MLAs actively campaigned for another political party during elections.
Statements made by the legislators to the media and public gatherings, including declarations such as “We are joining the Congress party solely for the sake of development,” are also expected to be submitted as evidence.
Ultimately, the courts will have to determine whether the conduct of the MLAs constitutes defection under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule.
