Telangana Assembly Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar has ruled that Bandla Sanjay Kumar, the eighth MLA accused of switching sides did not “cross the floor”, effectively dismissing a petition filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLA Padi Kaushik Reddy.
The BRS has alleged that 10 of its MLAs joined the Congress and that complaints in this regard were pending before the Speaker. With this decision, the Speaker has now dismissed petitions against eight of the legislators, holding that the material on record did not establish the essential elements of defection.
The Speaker stated that the petitioner had failed to produce evidence showing that the MLA had voluntarily relinquished membership of the party on whose ticket he was elected or had formally joined a rival party. In the absence of such proof, he held, the Anti-Defection Law could not be invoked.
The dispute is rooted in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, inserted through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985, which seeks to penalise legislators who voluntarily give up membership of their political party or who disobey the party whip in specified circumstances. The law vests the power of adjudication in the Speaker or Chairman of the legislature concerned. Courts have repeatedly held that the expression “voluntarily gives up membership” is wider than a formal resignation and may be inferred from conduct. At the same time, the standard of proof required to unseat an elected representative remains high.
In this case, the Supreme Court, on July 31, 2025, directed the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions within three months. The order came after prolonged delays in disposing of the pleas. During this period, Jubilee Hills MLA Maganti Gopinath, one of the 10 MLAs named in the petitions, passed away, rendering proceedings against him infructuous. As a result, effective adjudication now remains in respect of nine MLAs.
Beyond the Supreme Court-imposed deadline, much of what has unfolded follows a familiar pattern in Indian politics. While the Anti-Defection Law exists on paper, its effectiveness is blunted by the fact that the power to decide cases rests with the Speaker, who is typically a member of the ruling party. Speakers across States have often been accused of delaying or shaping decisions in ways that suit the political interests of their parties.
The BRS itself actively encouraged defections when it was in power, most notably by absorbing a large section of the Telugu Desam Party. It has weakened the Congress and opened the doors for MLAs from all parties. Now in opposition, the party is talking about the Constitutional spirit and ethical politics. The Congress, which strongly opposed defections while in opposition, has largely fallen silent on the issue after coming to power.
The role of the judiciary has also evolved slowly. The delay denied justice. Although Speakers’ decisions were made subject to judicial review in 1992 with the Supreme Court’s verdict in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu case, courts for years refrained from imposing firm deadlines. The practice of directing Speakers to decide anti-defection petitions within a fixed period began in 2020, when the Supreme Court, in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. the Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly case, ordered disposal within three months. The Telangana case marks a continuation of that approach.
Once the Speaker decides on the remaining petitions, the BRS is expected to approach the courts seeking a review of the orders. The larger question is whether the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to press for the much-needed reform, i.e., prescribing a mandatory time frame in the Constitution. Without such changes, critics argue, the Anti-Defection Law will continue to exist more as a political tool than as a credible safeguard of legislative morality.
