Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Monday heard nine writ petitions filed by eight BRS MLAs and one BJP MLA challenging the Speaker’s decisions rejecting pleas seeking disqualification of 10 BRS MLAs who allegedly joined the Congress without resigning from the BRS. 

The bench heard arguments by senior counsel Gandra Mohan Rao for the petitioners. 

He contended that the Speaker had misapplied Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the Telangana Legislative Assembly Members’ Disqualification Rules, governing disqualification petitions. 

Rao said Rule 6 permits “any other member” of the Assembly to file a petition alleging disqualification under the Tenth Schedule and does not require it to be filed by the political party. He said petitions by fellow legislators were maintainable. 

On Rule 7, Rao said the Speaker must first examine whether a petition satisfies Rule 6 and, if so, forward it to the member concerned for a response. 

He pointed out that petitions were filed on May 18, 2024, but notices were issued only in January 2025, questioning the delay. He cited Supreme Court observations requiring decisions within a reasonable time. 

Rao argued that under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule, voluntary relinquishment of party membership can be established through conduct and does not require formal resignation or expulsion. 

He said joining another party, participating in its programmes or contesting elections on its ticket could constitute evidence. He said party discipline and disqualification proceedings operate independently. 

The bench questioned whether the MLAs continuing to be listed as BRS members in Assembly records and lack of disciplinary action should influence the Speaker’s decision. 

Rao said the petitions were based on voluntary relinquishment, not violation of a party whip. 

In connected petitions, counsel argued that once disqualification is incurred, subsequent conduct cannot undo it, citing Constitution Bench rulings in the Karnataka and Subhash Desai cases. 

Counsel A Venkatesh, appearing for respondent Danam Nagender, argued that courts should exercise greater restraint when reviewing a Speaker’s finding of no disqualification. 

He said unseating an elected representative could affect the voters’ mandate. Venkatesh contended that contesting a Lok Sabha election on a rival party’s ticket did not by itself establish voluntary relinquishment and raised procedural objections under Rules 6 and 7. 

Counsel for the Speaker said the Speaker would maintain constitutional neutrality, acting as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule. 

The bench adjourned hearing to August 18.