Explained: Why Telangana Speaker junked disqualification pleas against 5 BRS MLAs

Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar, acting as the adjudicating tribunal, disposed of each case on identical grounds, drawing heavily from Supreme Court precedents that demand "positive, reliable, and unequivocal" proof before unseating an elected member.

Synopsis: The Speaker’s orders rejecting the petitions held that there was “no material, either in fact or in law,” to conclude that any of the respondents had voluntarily given up their BRS membership under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.

Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar of the Telangana Legislative Assembly rejected the BRS petitions seeking the disqualification of five of its MLAs after finding them riddled with “foundational and incurable defects, both jurisdictional and evidentiary.”

The Speaker’s orders, published in the Telangana Gazette Extraordinary, held that there was “no material, either in fact or in law,” to conclude that any of the respondents had voluntarily given up their BRS membership under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.

Citing a lack of evidence, Kumar had rejected the petitions against MLAs Tellam Venkat Rao, Bandla Krishna Mohan Reddy, T Prakash Goud, Gudem Mahipal Reddy and Arekapudi Gandhi on Wednesday, 17 December.

Related: Speaker rejects disqualification pleas against 5 BRS MLAs

Petitioners’ complaint

The BRS petitions — Nos. 2, 6, 7, 9, and 11 of 2024 — targeted the five legislators, accused of defection amid post-election shifts following the Congress’s victory in the 2023 Assembly polls.

BRS leaders, who were the petitioners, alleged that the MLAs had shown disloyalty through public appearances and statements perceived as anti-BRS.

However, Kumar, acting as the adjudicating tribunal, disposed of each case on identical grounds, drawing heavily from Supreme Court precedents that demand “positive, reliable, and unequivocal” proof before unseating an elected member.

He emphasised that defection charges carry a heavy burden, given the Tenth Schedule’s aim to curb political horse-trading while protecting democratic mandates.

Also Read: TPCC chief confirms BRS MLAs joined Congress

Petitioners lacked locus standi

At the outset, in Point No. 1 across all orders, the Speaker ruled that petitioners lacked locus standi due to non-compliance with Rule 3(1-A) of the Members of the Telangana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986.

This rule mandates specific disclosures for who can file such petitions, a threshold the complainants failed to meet, rendering the cases jurisdictionally defective from inception.

He described these lapses, coupled with violations of Rules 6 and 7 on filing, verification, and document annexures, as “substantial” irregularities—not mere technicalities but fatal blows that branded the petitions as fundamentally unsound.

​Procedural objections from respondents were upheld. Petitioners’ attempts to slip in fresh facts and documents via rejoinders, without seeking formal amendments to pleadings, were deemed “impermissible” under Points 3, 5, and 6.

The Speaker rejected claims that assisting counsel’s presence vitiated proceedings (Point No. 4), clarifying that it aided fair inquiry without bias. All pending applications and memos were closed without costs, underscoring a no-nonsense approach to judicial economy.

Also Read: BRS and the challenge of reinvention

Miserable failure

The crux of failure lay in Point No. 2: petitioners “miserably failed” to plead or prove voluntary relinquishment of BRS membership. The Speaker examined the evidence and found that it rested “solely upon newspaper clippings, electronic media extracts, and unverified online material”—pure hearsay inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act.

Lacking primary evidence, foundational facts, Section 65B certification for electronic records, Section 63 compliance for secondary documents, or cross-examination of creators, such material could not discharge the petitioners’ burden.

​Even accepting the alleged acts at face value—like public events or statements—the orders stressed they amounted to, at best, “routine participation in local, non-political social engagements.”

This fell woefully short of the “clear, unequivocal conduct” required for defection, as per Supreme Court rulings insisting on strict proof to avoid frivolous unseating of legislators.

The Speaker invoked cases mandating authenticity and reliability, warning against lowering bars in politically charged matters.

Also Read: BRS looks at water route to revival

MLA-wise observations and relief

• Tellam Venkata Rao (Bhadrachalam-ST constituency): No locus under Rule 3(1-A); unproven BRS exit, with the case hinging on inadmissible media unfit to unseat an elected ST representative from this tribal belt constituency.​
• Bandla Krishna Mohan Reddy (Gadwal): Petitioners’ evidence-building on reports and clips lacked certification; respondent’s own records showed only non-political local ties, not defection per judicial benchmarks.​
• T Prakash Goud (Rajendranagar): “Miserably failed” on voluntary relinquishment proof; social activities deemed local and apolitical, with hearsay evidence “woefully short” sans creator examination.​
• Gudem Mahipal Reddy (Patancheru): Foundational defects galore; hearsay media and uncertified extracts are insufficient for Paragraph 2(1)(a), preserving his seat in this industrial hub.​
• Arekapudi Gandhi (Serilingampally): Echoed locus/proof shortfalls; procedural Rules 6-7 breaches substantial, no factual/legal disqualification basis in this IT corridor segment.​

The Speaker ruled that all five BRS MLAs could continue as duly elected members, their mandates intact.

(Edited by Majnu Babu).