The Telangana High Court on Wednesday continued hearing petitions filed by BRS and BJP leaders challenging the Speaker’s decision to reject disqualification pleas against 10 BRS MLAs accused of defecting to the Congress. Petitioners argued that contesting elections on another party’s ticket amounts to voluntarily giving up membership under the Tenth Schedule.
Published Date – 12 August 2026, 10:07 PM
By Our Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday continued hearing petitions challenging the Speaker’s decision rejecting disqualification pleas against 10 BRS MLAs who allegedly defected to the Congress.
The petitions were filed by BRS MLAs Guntakandla Jagadish Reddy, K.P. Vivekananda, Kalvakuntla Sanjay, Palle Rajeshwar Reddy, Chinta Prabhakar and Padi Kaushik Reddy, along with BJP Legislature Party leader Aleti Maheshwar Reddy. The Speaker and the MLAs against whom the disqualification petitions were filed were made respondents in the proceedings.
The BRS had earlier approached the Speaker seeking disqualification of Kale Yadaiah, Danam Nagender, Pocharam Srinivas Reddy, Kadiyam Srihari, Bandla Krishna Mohan Reddy, T. Prakash Goud, A. Gandhi, Tellam Venkat Rao, Gudem Mahipal Reddy and Sanjay Kumar on the grounds that they had joined the Congress.
The Speaker, acting as the Tribunal pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, rejected the disqualification pleas on the ground that the MLAs had not legally defected.
Senior counsel Vivek Reddy, appearing for the petitioners, contended that a member need not formally resign from the original political party to attract disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.
He argued that contesting an election on another party’s ticket and campaigning for that party could amount to voluntarily giving up membership of the party on whose ticket the member was elected.
Referring to Danam Nagender’s case, Senior Counsel relied on the Gazette notification showing his election as a BRS MLA, his subsequent contest in the Lok Sabha elections as a Congress candidate and his Form-26 affidavit. He submitted that while an MLA is free to contest a Lok Sabha election, contesting on behalf of another political party has consequences under the anti-defection law.
The petitioners further contended that the Speaker had wrongly examined issues such as the stability of the Government and the numerical strength of political parties in the Assembly, whereas the principal question was whether the concerned MLAs had voluntarily given up membership of the BRS.
Reliance was also placed on an earlier High Court judgment holding that contesting an election on the ticket of another political party after being elected on the ticket of one party could amount to voluntarily giving up membership of the original party.
Senior counsel Gandra Mohan Rao submitted that videos and media material relied upon before the Speaker were available on record and sought directions for their production before the High Court.
The petitioners have challenged the Speaker’s orders on the grounds that the findings were contrary to the constitutional scheme, based on matters not on record, took into account irrelevant considerations into account and violated principles of natural justice.
The matter was adjourned for further hearing to Thursday.
