Hyderabad: The Telangana high court on Monday issued notices to assembly speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar and Khairatabad MLA Danam Nagender, directing them to file counter-affidavits in a petition challenging the speaker’s decision to dismiss a disqualification plea against the MLA.A bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin issued the directions while hearing a petition filed by BJP MLA and party floor leader Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, and posted the matter to April 16.Maheshwar had earlier approached the speaker seeking Nagender’s disqualification, alleging that he defected to the Congress after being elected on a BRS ticket and later contested the 2024 Lok Sabha elections as a Congress candidate.The speaker dismissed the petition on March 11. Challenging that order in the HC, Maheshwar alleged that the speaker had committed ‘significant jurisdictional errors’ and sought to have the decision set aside and Nagender disqualified under the anti-defection provisions of the Tenth Schedule.Advocate general A Sudarshan Reddy, appearing for the speaker as senior counsel, informed the bench that the speaker also functions as a tribunal and accepted notice on his behalf.Petitioner’s counsel K Vivek Reddy argued that although disqualification issues involving MLAs were before the Supreme Court, the petitioner had approached the HC relying on a Karnataka HC ruling that such matters may be disposed of expeditiously by high courts.Referring to a Supreme Court precedent, Vivek argued that once Nagender, elected on a BRS ticket, contested the Lok Sabha election on a Congress ticket, disqualification would take effect from the date of filing nomination.“The facts in both matters are identical. The Supreme Court held that in such circumstances no further evidence is required and no further inquiry is warranted. One cannot simultaneously hold affiliation to two political parties,” he submitted.Referring to the speaker’s observation that he could not examine a member’s conduct outside the House and could only consider conduct within the House, Vivek argued that such reasoning was ‘wholly alien’ to constitutional norms.He also referred to the speaker’s findings under the Tenth Schedule that the BRS’s numerical strength was unaffected and that Nagender was not attempting to destabilise the govt. “In fact, being in the opposition (BRS), he is obligated to destabilise the govt,” counsel argued.Submitting that the speaker’s order contained several errors inconsistent with the Tenth Schedule, Vivek cited the SC’s ruling in Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu and said a speaker’s decision can be challenged on grounds of violation of constitutional mandate, perversity, breach of natural justice, and mala fides. The SC addressed the constitutionality of the anti-defection law in this case.He further argued that although Nagender was elected on a BRS ticket, shifted to the Congress, contested on its ticket, and campaigned against the BRS, the speaker relied on subsequent developments such as the BRS not removing him from the party, not initiating disciplinary action, and his not resigning from the party. He termed the speaker’s approach in the disqualification petition as ‘adversarial’.Recording the submissions, the bench adjourned the matter.
