Supreme Court to examine petition challenging Telangana Assembly Speaker's inaction on disqualifying 10 BRS MLAs who defected to Congress, on November 17, 2025.
Filed by BRS leader K T Rama Rao, alleges violation of anti-defection law under Tenth Schedule; seeks direction for Speaker to decide pending pleas.
10 BRS MLAs joined Congress in 2024 without resigning; Speaker yet to act despite BRS complaints, amid political row over delayed justice.
Supreme Court To Hear BRS Plea On Defection Of 10 MLAs To Congress
Supreme Court to Hear BRS Plea on Defection of 10 MLAs to Congress; Telangana Speaker in Dock on Nov 17
Summary
The Supreme Court will hear on November 17 a plea against the Telangana Assembly Speaker for failing to decide on the disqualification of 10 Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs who defected to the ruling Congress.
The petition, filed by BRS working president K T Rama Rao, accuses Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar of deliberate inaction, violating the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
A bench headed by Justice Hrishikesh Roy listed the matter after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Rama Rao, pressed for urgent hearing. The court had issued notice to the Speaker in October.
The 10 MLAs, including Danam Nagender and others, joined Congress in batches between March and June 2024 without resigning their BRS membership, prompting disqualification petitions from the party in July. Despite reminders, the Speaker has not initiated proceedings.
Rama Rao argued this delays justice and undermines the anti-defection framework meant to prevent horse-trading. The plea seeks a timeline for decision or court intervention.
The case highlights ongoing political friction in Telangana, where Congress holds 65 seats in the 119-member Assembly post-2023 polls. BRS, reduced to 39, accuses the ruling party of engineering defections.
Similar pleas are pending in other states, with SC emphasizing timely disposal in past rulings like the 2023 Maharashtra case. The November 17 hearing could set precedents for Speaker accountability.
Published At: