The Telangana High Court, in a significant ruling on Friday, disqualified Khairatabad Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), Danam Nagendar, due to his defection from the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) to the Indian National Congress (INC). This decision was rendered in the case of Alleti Maheshwar Reddy v. The Honourable Speaker.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin declared that Nagendar’s seat is now vacant, necessitating fresh elections. The judgment overturns the previous decision by Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker G Prasad Kumar, who had dismissed the disqualification petition against Nagendar.
The High Court was approached with petitions by BJP leader Alleti Maheshwar Reddy and BRS MLA Padi Kaushik Reddy. They challenged the Speaker’s refusal to disqualify Nagendar under the anti-defection law. Representing Alleti Maheshwar Reddy was Senior Advocate K Vivek Reddy, assisted by advocate N Avaneesh, while Padi Kaushik Reddy was represented by Senior Advocate Gandra Mohan Rao, with advocate S Santosh Kumar briefing him. Advocate Tulsi Raj Gokul appeared on behalf of the Speaker. Senior Advocates A Venkatesh and Gourav Agrawal, briefed by advocate KV Rusheek Reddy, represented Danam Nagendar.
Previously, in July 2025, the Supreme Court set a three-month deadline for the Speaker to resolve the disqualification of three MLAs, including Nagendar, who had switched allegiance to the Congress post-election on BRS tickets. This directive came after the Supreme Court nullified a November 2024 Telangana High Court Division Bench decision that had quashed a single judge’s order mandating the Speaker to either set a timetable for deciding the matter or face potential court orders.
The petitions against the Speaker’s inaction were filed by BRS MLAs Kuna Pandu Vivekananda, Padi Kaushik Reddy, and BJP MLA Alleti Maheshwar Reddy, targeting the disqualification of MLAs Venkata Rao Tellam, Kadiyam Srihari, and Danam Nagendar.
On September 9, 2024, Justice B Vijaysen Reddy had directed the Secretary of the Assembly to present the disqualification petitions to the Speaker for a timely decision. The High Court was to be informed of the schedule set by the Speaker. The single judge had warned that failure to act within four weeks would lead to the matter being reopened suo motu, with appropriate orders issued. However, this directive was challenged and subsequently overturned by a Division Bench of the High Court, which instead urged the Speaker to decide the matter within a reasonable timeframe.
