‘The top court has said that it was about time that Parliament reviewed its expectation that Assembly Speakers and Chairmen would live up to the dignity of their high office and crush the evil of political defection’. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
“The office of the Speaker is held in highest respect and esteem in parliamentary traditions. The robes of the Speaker do change and elevate the man inside.” This observation by the Telangana Assembly Speaker, G. Prasad Kumar, was made while dealing with the disqualification petition filed against Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) MLA Arekapudi Gandhi, who is facing the charge of having defected to the ruling Congress. The Speaker also dismissed the petitions filed against four other BRS MLAs, Tellam Venkat Rao, Gudem Mahipal Reddy, T. Prakash Goud and Bandla Krishnamohan Reddy.
The Speaker was acting as the chairman of the Tribunal to deal with the disqualification petitions filed by the BRS leadership against 10 of its MLAs, who allegedly defected to the Congress, after winning in the December 2023 elections. The Speaker has kept in abeyance the decision on three MLAs. He has not conducted hearings for two other MLAs despite repeated requests by the BRS.
The Speaker made an interesting observation about the petition which claimed that the respondent (Mr. Gandhi) had “voluntarily gave up his membership of the BRS by joining the Indian National Congress”. Here, the Speaker dealt with the locus standi of the petitioners (the BRS legislators) to file the disqualification petitions. This concerned the issue whether a disqualification petition against a sitting MLA alleging defection must be filed only by a person duly authorised to do so and in writing by the party on whose B-Form the legislator was elected, or whether any other person too has the locus standi to file such a petition even without specifying the capacity in which it is filed.
The Speaker said that since objections around the issue repeatedly arise during disqualification proceedings, particularly where one MLA sought the disqualification of another who had allegedly defected on grounds that were more out of political vendetta or over internal differences, it was appropriate that the Tribunal settled this issue first before proceeding to answer other questions.
Citing Rule 3(1)(a) of the Rules, 1986 and Rule 3(4), he said: “Admittedly, the petitioner did not state in what capacity he filed the petition or how he acquired the right of action, as he is neither a voter of the constituency from which the respondent was elected nor specifically authorised in writing by the BRS party.”
The Speaker did not factor in the observation made by the Supreme Court of India, in the Speaker of Odisha Legislative Assembly vs Utkal Keshari Parida which raised the locus standi of a non-member of the House in submitting a petition for disqualification. The Court had held that “not only a member of the House, but any person interested would also be entitled to bring to the notice of the Speaker the fact that a Member of the House had incurred disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India.” The observation assumes importance as all the petitioners who filed their disqualification pleas with the Speaker are Members of the Assembly representing the BRS.
The manner in which the petitions have been dismissed has drawn the ire of the BRS and the Bharatiya Janata Party (which described the verdict as “unilateral”). The parties have alleged that the Speaker was acting at the behest of the Chief Minister, A. Revanth Reddy, and was in line with the Chief Minister’s claims that there was no scope for any bypolls. The BRS has said that it will explore legal avenues after a thorough study of the Speaker’s verdict based on the Supreme Court’s observation that the Speaker of a State Assembly does not enjoy constitutional immunity while acting as an adjudicating authority in disqualification petitions.
The action in delivering the verdict pertaining to disqualification petitions filed against five of the 10 MLAs appears largely driven by the deadline set by the Supreme Court. The Court, while dealing with the petitions filed by the BRS leaders, had said it was about time that Parliament reviewed its expectation that Assembly Speakers and Chairmen would live up to the dignity of their high office and crush the “evil of political defection” by deciding disqualification proceedings against legislators in time and without favour.
With the decision on disqualification petitions pending against the other MLAs, it remains to be seen what happens next.
rajeev.madabhushi@thehindu.co.in
Published – January 06, 2026 12:38 am IST
