KTR Slams Telangana Speaker's Verdict Acquitting Defector MLAs as 'Assault on Constitution'
Telangana Assembly Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar dismissed all disqualification petitions against 10 Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs who had joined the ruling Congress party after the December 2023 assembly elections — clearing them of defection charges.
The final verdicts on the last two MLAs — Danam Nagender (Khairatabad) and Kadiyam Srihari (Station Ghanpur) — were delivered on March 11, 2026, nearly two weeks beyond the Supreme Court's prescribed timeline.
The Speaker's reasoning: there was "no conclusive documentary or legally sustainable evidence" of defection. Media reports, newspaper clippings, and TV footage of BRS MLAs with the Congress Chief Minister were dismissed as "mere hearsay."
BRS working president K.T. Rama Rao (KTR) called the verdict "undemocratic and shocking" — terming it an "open assault on the Constitution" and alleged the Speaker's office was weaponised to protect political switchers.
The case is set to be challenged before the Telangana High Court.
Anti-Defection Law: 10th Schedule of the Constitution
The 10th Schedule was added to the Constitution by the Constitution (52nd Amendment) Act, 1985, to address the plague of political defections that had destabilised governments throughout the 1960s–1980s. It provides for the disqualification of elected members who defect from the party on whose ticket they were elected.
The Telangana case exposes the central tension in the 10th Schedule architecture: the Speaker who adjudicates defection cases is from the same party that benefits from the alleged defectors' switch — creating a structural conflict of interest that the law does not resolve.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others (1992): Landmark Case
This is the foundational Supreme Court judgment on the 10th Schedule. A five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the validity of the Anti-Defection Law while striking down Paragraph 7 (ouster of judicial review).
Key Details
- Held: The 10th Schedule is constitutionally valid and serves the legitimate purpose of strengthening parliamentary democracy
- Held: Paragraph 7, which barred courts from reviewing the Speaker's disqualification orders, violates the Basic Structure doctrine by excluding judicial review — and was struck down
- Held: The Speaker's decision on disqualification is a "tribunal" for the purposes of Articles 136, 226, and 227 — courts can review it on grounds of mala fide, perversity, or violation of natural justice
- Held: Disqualification becomes effective only after the Speaker's order, not upon the occurrence of the defection event
- Significance: Established that the Speaker, when acting as adjudicator under the 10th Schedule, must act as a quasi-judicial authority bound by natural justice principles
KTR's path to the High Court rests entirely on Kihoto Hollohan — the Speaker's acquittal order can be challenged if the court finds that the Speaker acted mala fide, failed to apply the correct legal standard for "voluntary giving up of membership," or violated natural justice in dismissing visual evidence (TV footage, news reports).
"Voluntary Giving Up of Membership": The Evidentiary Standard
The phrase "voluntarily giving up membership of a political party" under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the 10th Schedule is broader than formal resignation. The Supreme Court in Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India (1994) held that a member need not formally resign from the party to be found to have "voluntarily given up" membership — conduct inconsistent with continued party membership suffices.
The Speaker's rejection of TV footage and news reports as inadmissible hearsay contradicts established Supreme Court precedent that behavioural and circumstantial evidence is sufficient. This evidentiary error, if upheld on challenge, would be the strongest ground for judicial intervention.
- 10th Schedule added by: Constitution (52nd Amendment) Act, 1985
- Adjudicating authority: Speaker/Chairman of the House concerned
- Merger exception: Two-thirds of legislative party members must merge (Paragraph 4)
- Key case: Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992 — Paragraph 7 struck down; judicial review affirmed
- Evidence standard: Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India, 1994 — conduct/circumstantial evidence admissible
- 10 BRS MLAs acquitted by Telangana Speaker, March 2026
- Timeline breach: Verdict came ~2 weeks after the Supreme Court's deadline
- KTR's characterisation: "Undemocratic, shocking, open assault on Constitution"