New Delhi [India], September 24 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the disqualification of Telangana MLA Danam Nagender, rejecting his plea against the Telangana High Court order which held that he had incurred disqualification by contesting the 2024 Lok Sabha election on a Congress ticket while being a BRS MLA.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana dismissed Nagender’s challenge to the September 18 High Court judgment and upheld its direction declaring the Khairatabad Assembly seat vacant.
The Court’s hearing centred on whether Nagender’s subsequent attempt to return to BRS as an MLA could undo the consequences of his alleged defection to Congress and allow him to continue as an MLA.
Nagender was among 10 BRS MLAs who were alleged to have defected to the Congress after the BRS lost the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. While the other nine were alleged to have met Congress leaders and Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, Nagender formally contested the Lok Sabha election from Secunderabad on a Congress ticket.
He lost the Lok Sabha election but sought to continue as an MLA from Khairatabad, which he had won on a BRS ticket in the 2023 State Assembly polls.
It was this formal contesting of the Lok Sabha election as a Congress candidate, while holding the BRS Assembly seat, that formed the basis for the High Court’s disqualification order.
Nagender, however, maintained before the Supreme Court that he had never left the BRS and relied on his subsequent return to the party.
The issue brought the Court to the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides for disqualification of legislators on grounds including voluntarily giving up membership of a political party, as well as voting or abstaining from voting contrary to the party’s direction without prior permission.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Nagender, took the bench through the relevant provisions of the Tenth Schedule.
Rohatgi argued that the constitutional scheme contemplated circumstances in which a member could be brought back into the political party.
He described Nagender’s case as one of “ghar wapasi”.
The Court questioned whether returning to the original political party could undo the consequences of the conduct which had attracted disqualification.
“Can ghar wapasi save you from disqualification?”, Justice Bagchi asked.
The Court pointed out that returning to the political party and returning to the House were two separate questions.
“He may be brought back to the party, not the House”, Justice Bagchi added.
Rohatgi continued to rely on the provisions of the Tenth Schedule in support of Nagender’s case.
The Court also examined the distinction between the different grounds of disqualification under the Schedule.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the BJP MLA who had filed a plea seeking Nagender’s disqualification before the High Court, referred to the familiar expression “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” while making submissions on political defections.
He said it’s a simple case of “Aaya Ram Gaya Ram”, a Hindi phrase for party-hopping or defecting, which is covered under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
The Court then turned the expression around while referring to Nagender’s return to the BRS and noted verbally that it’s a case of “Phir Aaya Ram?”, referring to Nagender’s attempt at homecoming.
The exchange went to the heart of Nagender’s argument on whether an attempt to return to the original party could restore an Assembly membership (MLA) after the legislator had acted in a manner attracting disqualification.
The Telangana High Court had passed its September 18 order on petitions filed by BJP MLA Alleti Maheshwar Reddy and BRS MLA Padi Kaushik Reddy.
Earlier, Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker Gaddam Prasad Kumar had dismissed the two remaining disqualification petitions against Nagender and Kadiyam Srihari on March 11.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Nagender’s plea leaves the High Court’s disqualification order undisturbed. (ANI)
“Not Aaya Ram Gaya Ram; it’s Phir Aaya Ram”: Why SC upheld Danam Nagender’s disqualification as MLA?
