- Supreme Court gave Telangana Speaker three months to decide on disqualifying 10 BRS MLAs
- BRS fears Speaker may delay disqualification despite Supreme Court's deadline
- Defecting MLAs filed affidavits claiming loyalty to BRS to avoid anti-defection law
The Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) has welcomed the Supreme Court ruling directing the Telangana Assembly Speaker to decide on the disqualification petitions against 10 BRS MLAs who defected to the Congress party within a strict three-month deadline.
BRS working president KT Rama Rao expressed immense satisfaction, posting on X, "BRS welcomes the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and we thank the Honourable CJI for ensuring that the democratic structure of this country isn't eroded by malicious methods."
The BRS leader also challenged Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, invoking Gandhi's "Panch Nyay" principles, which reportedly advocate for stronger anti-defection laws and automatic cancellation of membership upon defection.
"I hope @rahulgandhi who in his Panch Nyay advocated for stronger anti-defection laws and automatic cancellation upon defection, will welcome this decision," KTR tweeted. He further dared Rahul Gandhi to "stand by his own preachings," and implored the Congress party not to "use the honourable Speaker's position to make a mockery of the Indian Constitution, any further."
KTR sought to claim that proving that the MLAs had defected won't be tough.
"It doesn't need much investigation to accept that all these 10 MLAs switched to Congress illegitimately and have been participating in the Congress Party programs every single day!"
He extended his gratitude to the legal teams and "BRS soldiers" who supported the party during what he described as "tough times."
Interpreting the Supreme Court's directive, KTR indicated that the ruling paves the way for potential by-elections. "As I interpret it, we have three months to work towards the bypolls in 10 constituencies. Let's get to work, guys!" he declared, signaling the BRS's readiness for electoral contests.
The Supreme Court's directive is seen as a crucial step in addressing the long-pending disqualification petitions against the defecting MLAs and reinforcing the spirit of the anti-defection law.
The ruling has set the stage for a potentially intense political period in Telangana as parties prepare for the implications of these disqualification proceedings.
However, this has not brought full relief to the BRS, which still has concerns about how the process will move forward.
While the party has welcomed the observations of Chief Justice BR Gavai and the verdict offers a glimmer of hope for the BRS, there is still significant apprehension regarding the hurdles that lie ahead.
A primary concern for the BRS is the Speaker's potential to employ "technical excuses" to stall the disqualification process, despite the Supreme Court's clear deadline.
This fear is compounded by the fact that several defecting MLAs have already filed affidavits, asserting their continued allegiance to the BRS and dismissing their meetings with the Chief Minister as "mere courtesy call," thereby attempting to circumvent the anti-defection law.
The BRS leadership is awaiting the Supreme Court's full judgment text before charting the party's next course of action. The cautious approach underscores the complexity of the legal and political landscape.
The BRS feels it may be left in a precarious position with limited immediate recourse should the Speaker delay beyond the stipulated three-month period. Their only option would be to re-approach the Supreme Court, a process that could be time-consuming and further prolong the uncertainty.
Additionally, the burden of proof now squarely rests on the BRS to furnish technical evidence demonstrating the MLAs' defection. In the absence of formal resignations from the BRS or official enrollment in the Congress by the defecting MLAs, producing concrete proof of defection is difficult.
The shifting of decision-making power from the court's jurisdiction to the Speaker is viewed with considerable apprehension by BRS leaders. They anticipate that the Speaker might defer the decision, citing insufficient evidence, and could even justify this stance to the Supreme Court.
Under such circumstances, BRS leaders do not foresee a favourable outcome from the Speaker's ruling and there could be intricate legal and political challenges for the BRS.
The anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule of the Constitution) itself doesn't explicitly define what constitutes "proof of defection" beyond the general grounds for disqualification.
However, Supreme Court interpretations have clarified that "voluntarily giving up membership" has a wider connotation than a formal resignation. This can be inferred from a legislator's conduct, even in the absence of formal resignation.
Examples include publicly criticising the party, attending rallies of opposition parties, or voting against the party whip without prior permission and subsequent condonation.
