Telangana HC sets aside Speaker's orders, declares MLA disqualified for contesting Lok Sabha polls on another party's ticket

Court: High Court for the State of Telangana
Date of judgment: 18 September 2026
Case: WP/8647/2026
Parties: Mr. Padi Kaushik Reddy, Vs The Honble Speaker-cum-Tribunal
Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH, G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Outcome: Allowed

Summary

The Telangana High Court has set aside the Speaker's decisions in two disqualification petitions and declared that Danam Nagender stands disqualified as a Member of the Telangana Legislative Assembly from 23 April 2024, the date he filed his nomination as the candidate set up by the Indian National Congress (INC) for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections from Secunderabad, despite having been elected on a Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) ticket. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, by a common order in Writ Petition Nos. 8409 and 8647 of 2026, held that the Speaker's contrary findings breached the constitutional mandate and were perverse. The Court declared the seat vacant.

Mr. Nagender was elected from the 60-Khairatabad constituency in December 2023. On 23 April 2024 he filed his nomination for the Lok Sabha as an INC candidate, campaigned against the BRS candidate and lost. Disqualification Petition No. 1 of 2024 (Padi Kaushik Reddy) was filed on 18 March 2024, and Disqualification Petition No. 4 of 2024 (Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, a BJP member) on 1 July 2024, both seeking a declaration of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. On 31 July 2025 the Supreme Court directed the Speaker to decide within three months. The Speaker, sitting as a Tribunal, dismissed both petitions on 11 March 2026, and the petitioners came to the High Court.

The question before the court

Was the Speaker's decision vitiated on the grounds of judicial review laid down in Kihoto Hollohan?
Can conduct outside the House, such as contesting a Lok Sabha election on another party's ticket, amount to voluntarily giving up membership under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule?
Did Mr. Nagender incur disqualification and, if so, from what date?

What each side argued

The petitioners argued that contesting Parliamentary elections on another party's ticket amounts to voluntarily giving up membership, relying on Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh and R. Bhoopathi Reddy, that no formal resignation is required, and that respondent No. 2 had not denied the facts.
They argued that the Speaker wrongly took into account the BRS party's silence and the absence of any disciplinary action, when condonation is relevant only in an enquiry under paragraph 2(1)(b), and that the petition could not be dismissed for verification defects because the Rules cannot defeat the Tenth Schedule.
Respondent No. 2 argued that contesting the Lok Sabha election is not constitutionally prohibited, that he remained a BRS member recorded in the House's records and followed party directions, and that the Speaker's jurisdiction is tied to conduct within the House.
He argued that no certified copies of Exs.P.1 to P.4 were filed, that media reports were hearsay, that the petition was not verified as Rule 6(6) and (7) of the 1986 Rules require, and that judicial review is limited to the grounds laid down in Kihoto Hollohan.
The Speaker's counsel submitted that the Speaker acted as a Tribunal, followed natural justice and allowed cross-examination.

The court's decision

The Court noted that, under Kihoto Hollohan, the Speaker acts as a Tribunal and his decision is open to judicial review for violation of a constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with natural justice and perversity. It found that the Speaker's view that his jurisdiction is tethered to conduct inside the House breached Article 191(2) read with the Tenth Schedule, since he did not refer to Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh, where contesting a Parliamentary election on another party's ticket was held to be voluntarily giving up membership, and since the same approach was applied to conduct outside the House in Konda Muralidhar Rao, R. Bhoopathi Reddy, Ravi S. Naik and Rajendra Singh Rana.

On whether contesting amounted to giving up membership, the Court held the Speaker's finding perverse. Paragraph 2(1)(a) is not concerned with whether the party condoned the conduct, which is relevant only under paragraph 2(1)(b). Respondent No. 2 had not denied that he was elected as a BRS member, that he was set up as an INC candidate, or that he campaigned against the BRS candidate, so no other view was possible.

On the evidence, the Court held that Exs.P.1 to P.4, including the Form 26 affidavits, the Gazette notification and Form 7A, were not denied and, with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam presumptions for Gazettes, were sufficient. Reliance on Samant N. Balkrishna and Laxmi Raj Shetty was misplaced. Defection proceedings are non-adversarial, the Speaker has an independent duty, and the 1986 Rules are directory and cannot defeat the Tenth Schedule, following Ravi S. Naik.

The Court set aside the Speaker's decisions in both disqualification petitions, allowed both writ petitions and declared that respondent No. 2 stands disqualified from 23 April 2024 under paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule read with Article 191(2), so that the seat is vacant. The Court held that the matter need not be sent back to the Speaker for a fresh decision. It noted that the disqualification proceedings had lingered on for more than one and half years and that almost three years of the Legislative Assembly's term had expired, and followed Rajendra Singh Rana, where the Supreme Court itself held the members disqualified. It held that the disqualification would relate back to 23 April 2024, the date of the nomination, although counsel for the petitioner in WP 8647 of 2026 had suggested that the date of defection could be 15 March or 21 March 2024. A copy of the order is to go to the Secretary to the Speaker and to the Election Commission of India.

Precedents referred to

Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu
Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council
Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India
R. Bhoopathi Reddy v. Chairman, Telangana State Legislative Council
Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil
Rajendra Singh Rana
Konda Muralidhar Rao
Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez

Provisions referred to

Constitution of India, Article 191(2) and Article 226
Tenth Schedule, paragraph 2(1)(a)
Members of Telangana Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, 1986
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Sections 80 and 81)

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court for the State of Telangana. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Anti-Defection Tenth Schedule Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Legislative Assembly

Related judgments

Calcutta High Court ·30 Sep 2026 ·Labour Law

Calcutta HC sets aside award applying central minimum wages to contract labour; West Bengal is the appropriate government

The question: Is the Central Government or the State Government the 'appropriate government' for contract labour engaged through contractors at the company's Howrah factory?

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the award of 13 November 2024 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in case no. 39 of 2022, which held that the contractors' employees working for Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. are entitled to minimum wages at the rate fixed by the Central Government. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that, because the workers are engaged through contractors for work carried out within West Bengal, the State Government is the appropriate government under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the State Minimum Wages Act therefore applies to them. Bridge and Roof Company (India) Limited awarded contracts to several contractors through tenders with a condition that minimum rates of wages be paid to the labourers. Bridge and Roof Contractors' Shramik Union raised an industrial dispute for the contract workers at the Howrah factory, demanding Rs 26,000 a month as minimum wages or, in the alternative, the minimum wages notified by the Central Government. On a reference made on 26 August 2022, the Tribunal found nothing on record to show that the minimum rate was Rs 26,000. In its award of 13 November 2024 in Reference No. 39 of 2022, it nevertheless allowed the reference in part, holding that the contractors' employees were entitled to the minimum wages fixed by the Central Government from time to time, and that the company was bound to pay its contractors at that rate for payment to those employees. The company challenged the award in a writ petition.

Dismissed WPA/11917/2025

Telangana High Court ·29 Sep 2026 ·Property ★ Editor's pick

Telangana HC directs registration of a plot sale deed refused as unapproved layout, subject to regularisation charges

The question: Can a Sub-Registrar refuse to register a sale deed because the plot lies in an unapproved layout and no earlier registered document is shown?

The Telangana High Court has directed a Sub-Registrar to register a sale deed that he had refused to register because the plot lay in an unapproved layout. Justice Pulla Karthik relied on the common order passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 16310 of 2019 and batch and on the Supreme Court judgment in K. Gopi, which say that a registering authority can refuse a document only on grounds found in the Registration Act, 1908 and is not concerned with the title of the person executing it. The order was passed on 29 September 2026 in a writ petition taken up for disposal at the admission stage with the consent of both sides. The petitioner, Peguda Narasimha, a 78-year-old retired employee, said he owns Plot No. 8, measuring 166 sq. yards, in Sai Nagar Colony, Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, under an Agreement of Sale dated 22 August 2026. On 7 September 2026 he presented a sale deed in favour of a purchaser to the Sub-Registrar, Kapra. The document was kept pending and then refused by an intimation dated 11 September 2026 under Section 71 of the Registration Act. The Sub-Registrar relied on a memo of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registrations and Stamps of 26 August 2020, under which new plots in unapproved layouts are not to be registered unless they were earlier acquired through valid registered documents or have been regularised. The Court's order comes with conditions: the petitioner must pay the charges due under G.O.Ms.No.28 of 20 February 2025 and comply with the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act, and the registering authority remains free to refuse the document on any other ground, which it must record.

Disposed of WP/32411/2026

Supreme Court ·30 Sep 2026 ·Government Contracts

Supreme Court: A State cannot recover alleged overpayment on old works from a contractor's bills under separate contracts

The question: Is the recovery order traceable to any clause of the contract that lets the State recover dues of one contract from payments under another?

The Supreme Court on 30 September 2026 quashed a recovery order by which a Chhattisgarh road agency had deducted Rs 84,17,003 from a contractor's bills on three ongoing road projects to make good an alleged overpayment on two earlier, separate contracts. A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe (judgment by Justice Aradhe) held that none of the contract clauses relied on by the State permitted this, and that the order was passed without notice, in breach of natural justice. It directed the State to release the amount with 6 per cent interest. The appellant, M/s Awadhesh Singh Gautam, a partnership firm, was awarded three packages under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana by the Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency (CGRRDA), with work orders of 1 September 2023 and 5 November 2024. After doing about 40 per cent of each, it raised running bills of Rs 39,78,500, Rs 45,62,000 and Rs 23,55,000, which stayed unpaid despite reminders in September 2025. Separately, on 3 January 2023, it had been given two other road contracts of about Rs 437.43 lakh. After complaints of irregularities, a five-member committee appointed by the Collector, South Bastar, Dantewada, reported on 9 January 2024 that Rs 3,55,82,055 had been paid for those earlier works against work of only about Rs 1,54,75,938, an excess of Rs 2,01,06,117. It recommended recovery, blacklisting and a probe. A demand note issued under Section 146 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was quashed by the High Court on 5 March 2025 for want of notice or hearing, leaving the State free to act afresh in accordance with law. An FIR was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against a partner of the firm and CGRRDA officers, and a chargesheet was filed on 30 December 2025. Independently, the Executive Engineer of the Project Implementation Unit passed a recovery order on 27 September 2025, blocking Rs 84,17,003 out of the amounts payable and deducting Rs 28,00,000, Rs 38,00,000 and Rs 18,17,003 from the three subsequent works. The firm's representation of 9 October 2025 drew no response, and the High Court on 7 January 2026 dismissed its three writ petitions, saying disputed questions of fact could not be decided under Article 226.

Allowed C.A. No. 13299/2026