Published Sep 19, 2026 | 2:05 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 19, 2026 | 2:16 PM
D Nagender seen with CM Revanth Reddy in what was then seen as the "joining ceremony". (File Photo)
The Telangana High Court’s decision on September 18 to disqualify Khairatabad MLA Danam Nagender by setting aside the Speaker’s decision is being seen as a landmark verdict.
There are nine other BRS MLAs — Kadiyam Srihari (Station Ghanpur), Pocharam Srinivas Reddy (Banswada), Tellam Venkat Rao (Bhadrachalam), Arekapudi Gandhi (Serilingampally), Prakash Goud (Rajendranagar), Gudem Mahipal Reddy (Patancheru), Bandla Krishna Mohan Reddy (Gadwal), Kale Yadaiah (Chevella) and M Sanjay Kumar (Jagtia) — who have defected to the Congress.
The BRS is now hoping that the verdict, while not directly addressing these defections, will strengthen its case for disqualifying the nine MLAs too. BRS working president KTR said as much, greeting the judgment with the slogan ‘Satyamave Jayate!’ (Truth alone wins!)
“The rest of the defectors will also meet the same fate soon,” KTR posted on X.
Telangana Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin made several important observations in their verdict disqualifying BRS MLA Danam Nagender, who had contested the 2024 parliamentary elections as a Congress candidate.
Crucially, there was a stinging rebuke of the ruling by the Speaker, Gaddam Prasad Kumar, allowing Nagender to continue as an MLA.
The Court said the ruling suffered from “perversity in the eye of law” and was a “breach of constitutional obligations”.
The Speaker had cited a “lack of sufficient evidence” to prove defection while insisting Nagender was technically still with the BRS. The two-judge bench was categorical in its rejection of this reasoning.
The Speaker’s stance to justify his decision made on March 11, 2026, was that his adjudicatory powers were strictly “tethered to the legislative sphere” and restricted to conduct on the floor of the House.
Choices made outside the Assembly, such as contesting the Lok Sabha elections on a rival party’s ticket, did not impact Assembly proceedings and were outside his purview, Gaddam Prasad Kumar had held.
Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin brushed this aside while terming such an interpretation a violation of the Constitutional mandate under Article 191(2) of the Constitution read with Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule.
Article 191(2) says that “A person shall be disqualified for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.” Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule sets out the grounds for disqualification on the ground of defection, including where a member voluntarily gives up membership of a political party.
The Speaker had also observed that the petitioners had failed to prove their case to disqualify Danam Nagender through direct witness testimonies and instead relied on secondary proof.
The Telangana High Court rejected this, underlining that there was no dispute over the fact that Danam Nagender had been elected to the Assembly on a BRS ticket and had filed his statutory Form 26 nomination affidavit for the 2024 Lok Sabha election as an Indian National Congress candidate.
The Court observed that “admission is the best evidence that can be relied upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous” to emphasise why Nagender’s nomination affidavit was proof enough.
The Court also distinguished defection proceedings from adversarial civil or election disputes, noting, “In defection proceedings the Hon’ble Speaker has an independent duty de hors (outside) pleadings… There is no lis (no legal dispute) between the member moving the disqualification petition and the member who incurs a disqualification.”
The High Court observed that procedural rules under the Members of Telangana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986 cannot be weaponised to defeat substantive Constitutional provisions.
It cited the Supreme Court order in Dr Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council to make its point, noting how the judgment had underlined that “The provisions of Rules 6 and 7 are directory in nature and on account of non-filing of an affidavit as required by Order VI Rule 15(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (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.”
Rules 6 and 7 lay out the legal protocol and procedural requirements for handling anti-defection petitions. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahachandra Prasad Singh, held that these requirements are directory in nature and that procedural non-compliance would not by itself invalidate a plea or prevent the Speaker from exercising jurisdiction.
The Telangana High Court, while making these observations and setting aside the Speaker’s order, declared that Danam Nagender stood disqualified as an MLA from April 23, 2024, the date he filed his nomination as the Congress candidate for the Secunderabad Lok Sabha seat. Nagender had been defeated by current Union Minister G Kishan Reddy of the BJP in that election by a margin of 49,944 votes. The Court ruled that “as a result thereof, the said (Assembly) seat (Khairatabad, represented by Nagender) is rendered vacant” and “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.”
Also Read:
Telangana’s Danam Nagender verdict: A test of the Speaker’s Constitutional credibility
(Edited by R Rajesh Kumar.)
