THE TELANGANA GAZETTE

PART–II EXTRAORDINARY

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 09]

HYDERABAD, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2019.

NOTIFICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT

–––x–––

TELANGANA STATE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

R.N.I. No.TELMUL/2016/73158.

[Price : `

`. 15-00.

HSE. No. 1051/2017-19.

G -660/1.

[ 1 ]

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHAIRMAN

TELANGANA STATE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

AT : HYDERABAD

Wednesday, the 16^th January, 2019

Present: Sri K. Swamy Goud, Hon’ble Chairman

Disqualification Petition No. 1 of 2018

Between:-

Sri Palla Rajeshwar Reddy, M.L.C.

Government Whip,

Telangana Legislative Council,

H.No. 8-2-293/82/Ng/32,

Nandagiri Hills, Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad.

Sri Bodakunti Venkateswarlu, M.L.C.

Government Whip,

Telangana Legislative Council,

Flat No. 179, Road No.10 C,

MPs’ & MLAs’ Colony,

Gayatri Hills, Hyderabad.

…Petitioners

TELANGANA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

[Part-II

AND

Sri K. Yadava Reddy, M.L.C.,

Plot No 61/A, Road No.9,

Phase-II, Filmnagar,

Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

…Respondent

This petition having come up for hearing before me and after hearing the

arguments of Sri P. Mohith Rao, Advocate representing the Petitioners and Sri T.

Sujan Kumar Reddy, Advocate representing the Respondent, I pass the following:

ORDER

Sri Palla Rajeshwar Reddy, Member of Telangana Legislative Council,

Government whip and a Member and leader of Telangana Rashtra Samithi party and

another (herein after called “the Petitioners”) filed a petition before me on

17.12.2018 under Article 191 r/w Paragraph 2 (1) (a) of Tenth Schedule to the

Constitution of India and Rule 6 of the Telangana Legislative Council (Dis-

qualification on Ground of Defection) Rules, (herein after called “the rules”) praying

that Sri K. Yadava Reddy, Member of Legislative Council (herein after called “the

respondent”) be disqualified under the Tenth schedule to the Constitution and his

seat be declared vacant in the Telangana Legislative Council.

In the petition, the petitioners averred that the respondent, after having been

elected to the Telangana Legislative Council, indulged in anti party activities in as

much as he met the President of Indian National Congress Party, Sri Rahul Gandhi

and joined the said party on 14.09.2018 and also canvassed on behalf of the Indian

National Congress Party in the pre elections conducted to the Telangana State

Legislative Assembly on 07.12.2018, on account of the Assembly being dissolved on

06.09.2018. In support of the contentions of the petitioners, they had Annexed

several news paper clippings along with photographs published therein and also

news bulletins telecast in this regard in various electronic media channels; and

contended that the respondent incurred disqualification on ground of defection as

the respondent being an elected member of the Legislative Council set up by the

TRS, joined another political party (Indian National Congress) and prayed that the

respondent be disqualified under the provisions of tenth schedule to the

Constitution of India.

January 16, 2019]

TELANGANA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

I have perused the averments in the petition and the annexed news paper

clippings, media reports and videos; having satisfied myself that the petition

complies with the requirements of Rule 6 of the Rules and in terms of sub-rule (3) of

Rule 7 of the Rules, on 18.12.2018, caused a copy of the petition along with all

Annexures thereto be forwarded to the respondent, in relation to whom the petition

has been made, with the request to furnish his comments thereon, in writing within

7 days of the receipt of the same. In response thereto, the respondent addressed a

letter and sought time till 03.01.2019 for submitting his comments on the said

petition; considering his request, he was granted time till 03.01.2019 as the sub-

rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules, Inter alia lays down that a Member, in relation to

whom the petition has been made , shall, within 7 days of the receipt of copy of the

petition or such further period as the Chairman may have sufficient cause to allow,

forward his comments in writing thereon to the Chairman; However, the respondent

has filed his reply/ comments to the petition on 03.01.2019. On 09.01.2019, a

further notice was sent to the respondent as well as petitioners requesting them to

appear personally on 11.01.2019 at 2.30 PM to present their case; whereas the

learned counsel for the Respondent sought time. Therefore, on the request of the

Learned Counsel for Respondent the matter was adjourned for next day i.e.

12.01.2019. On 12.01.2019, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri P. Mohith

Rao and the learned counsel for the Respondent Sri T. Sujan Kumar Reddy attended

and reported ready for hearing.

Heard both sides.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners:-

The Petitioners are the members of Telangana Rashtra Samithi (hereinafter

referred to as ‘TRS’ for brevity) which is a “Legislature Party” in the Telangana State

Legislative Council and the respondent herein is a member of the TRS party; the

respondent herein was nominated by the TRS party for being elected a member to

the Telangana State Legislative Council by Members of the Legislative Assembly and

got elected on 04.06.2015. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent

herein was a member of TRS party on the date of his election to the Council.

Therefore, as per the explanation to para 2(1)(a) of X Schedule to the Constitution,

the respondent herein be deemed to belong to TRS party in as much as he was a

Member of TRS party on the date of his election to the Council.

TELANGANA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

[Part-II

It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that TRS was formed as a

Political Party on 27.04.2001 with the stated objectives to have the Geographical

area of the present State of Telangana formed into a separate state. On account of

serious agitations for separation of Telangana Region from the State of Andhra

Pradesh, the Parliament passed the Andhra Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014 (Act

29 of 2014) creating a new State i.e. State of Telangana with an appointed date of

2^nd June, 2014 with 10 Districts. After the Re-organization Act was passed and/but

prior to the appointed date, the General Elections were conducted and by that time

the TRS party was registered as a Political Party, and had a common election symbol

of “CAR” for all the contestants who were nominated as members in respective

Assembly Constituencies in the said elections.

It is contended that the respondent herein on 14.09.2018 went to Delhi and

joined Indian National Congress Party in the presence of its President Sri Rahul

Gandhi; his joining Indian National Congress is reported in all the leading News

Papers along with Photographs such as Eenadu, The Hindu, Andhra Bhoomi, Deccan

Chronicle, The Hans India, Andhra Jyothi etc.. and was also telecast in Electronic

Media such as NTV, ETV, TV9, TV5, ABN Andhra Jyothi TV, Sakshi TV, etc; and also

canvassed for Indian National Congress Party in the elections that were conducted

on 7.12.2018.

It is vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent

herein has conclusively by his acts and by conduct “voluntarily” given up his

Membership of TRS Party within the meaning of the said expression in para 2(1)(a)

of the X Schedule to the Constitution.

It is further contended that the action on the part of the respondent amounts

to “voluntarily giving up his Membership of such political party” the term such

political party meaning the TRS Party on whose nomination the respondent got

elected as a Member of Legislative Council to the State of Telangana, by Members of

Legislative Assembly within the meaning of said expression occurring in Para 2 (1)

(a) of the X Schedule to the Constitution of India and explanation provided to sub

Para 1 of Para 2 of X schedule to the Constitution of India. And the conduct of the

respondent visits the Constitutional bar of disqualification to continue as a Member

of the Legislative Council, on account of defection suffered, as mandated under para

January 16, 2019]

TELANGANA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

2 (1) (a) of the tenth schedule to the Constitution of India. The Learned Counsel

for the petitioners also placed reliance on authoritative pronouncement of the

Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Rana and others Vs. Swamy Prasad Mourya and

others, Dr. Maha Chandra Singh Vs. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council, Kihoto

Hollohan Vs. Zachillhu etc., Ravi S Naik Vs Union of India and others ,

G.Vishwanathan Vs Hon’ble Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Madras and

another, Konda Muralidhar Rao Vs Dr.A.Chakrapani and 3 others and Speaker, Orissa

Legislative Assembly Vs Utkal Keshari Parida.

In reply to the notice received, the Respondent submitted his comments

through his counsel on 03.01.2019; the Petitioners also filed rejoinder to the same

on 07.01.2019 and both are taken on record.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent:

The preliminary contention pleaded on behalf of the Respondent is that the

petition as filed is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini as

the same is not complying with Rule 7 (2) r/w Rule 6(7) of the Telangana Legislative

Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules.

The learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the

Respondent got elected on 04.06.2015 as a Member of Legislative Council and on the

date of his election, he was a member of Telangana Rashtra Samithi party; however,

he denied the averment that he travelled to Delhi, met Sri Rahul Gandhi and joined

Indian National Congress Party. It has been further contended that in the petition, it

was averred that the Respondent was suspended from the Telangana Rashtra

Samithi party and therefore, it cannot be contended that he has voluntarily given up

his membership of the party and continues to be the deemed member of the same

party and as such, the petition is wholly misconceived.

It has been further contended on behalf of the Respondent that the petition is

wholly based on newspaper clippings and reports and therefore, the petition cannot

be decided basing on the said evidence.

In support of his contentions that he did not join the Indian National Congress

party, the Respondent contended that although he attended the public meeting

G -660/2.

TELANGANA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

[Part-II

which was organized by the Indian National Congress Party and met Smt. Sonia

Gandhi and Sri Rahul Gandhi, he attended the meeting only to convey his gratitude

to Smt Sonia Gandhi as she is instrumental in formation of a new State of Telangana.

It has been further contended that the media has misunderstood this event and

misreported it as if he had joined the Indian National Congress Party on that day.

Submissions to the rejoinder filed by the Petitioners:

10.

It is contended that the Respondent has admitted that he was belonging to

Telangana Rashtra Samithi Party as on the date of his election to the Legislative

Council. It is further submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that it is evident from all

the newspaper clippings filed along with the petition that the Respondent met Sri.

Rahul Gandhi and there is a photo depicting his joining the Indian National Congress

party in the presence of Shri Rahul Gandhi and the same has been widely reported in

all the newspapers and the Respondent never denied the said news reports and the

reports of electronic media till date, except in the reply filed by him. The learned

counsel for the Petitioners also drawn my attention to the photograph annexed to

the petition (at page 20) and contended that the said photograph in the newspaper

evidencing the Respondent joining the Indian National Congress party and ‘Congress’

Kanduva (a cloth around the shoulder) is being presented by Sri Rahul Gandhi to the

Respondent. The learned counsel for the Petitioners also contended that the

Respondent has not filed any evidence in support of his reply.

Consideration by the Tribunal:

11. The main contention of the Petitioners is that the respondent was a Member

belonging to Telangana Rashtra Samithi Party as on the date of his election to the

Council by the Members of Legislative Assembly in exercise of the powers conferred

by sub clause (d) of Clause (3) of Article 171 of Constitution of India r/w Clause 4 of

that Article, is not disputed during the course of the hearing by the respondent; the

respondent having received the petition along with all Annexures filed his comments

to the petition, but nowhere, in the said comments, he denied that he was not a

member of TRS party as on the date of his election. Therefore, in the absence of a

contra pleading or oral submission it can be safely concluded that it is an admitted

fact that the respondent was a Member of Telangana Rashtra Samithi Party as on

January 16, 2019]

TELANGANA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

the date of his election to the Council and be deemed to belong to TRS political

party.

12. The petitioners had relied mainly on newspaper clippings and video recordings

which appear on various TV channels as proof of the anti party activities of the

respondent and having voluntarily given up Membership to the TRS party; the

respondent has objected to the use of newspaper clippings and video recordings as

evidence by the petitioners contending that newspaper articles cannot be relied

upon as evidence in the absence of any corroborative material. However, in the

instant case, I see no reason as to why so many news papers and media channels

would publish /report something wrongly and if that was so, then the least that was

expected from the respondent was to forthwith deny the same and issue clarification

/ explanation in that regard. Many leading national and regional /state newspapers

and media channels did in fact report about the respondent joining the Indian

National Congress party in the presence of Sri Rahul Gandhi. I have seen the video

records; video recording thus provide ample and irrefutable proof that the

respondent had indeed joined Indian National Congress Party and instead of

categorically denying or refuting the allegations appearing in the newspaper

clippings, media reports , he has himself admitted through his counsel during the

course of oral arguments that he had met Sri Rahul Gandhi at Delhi and he joined

Indian National Congress Party but he cannot be disqualified either under Article

191 or under the provisions of the tenth schedule and the Rules made thereunder. I

have examined the said submission in the light of the provision of tenth schedule to

the Constitution of India and there is no such safeguard as contended provided

under tenth schedule and on the other hand para 2 (1) (a) of Tenth Schedule

makes it very clear that the elected member of the House shall incur

disqualification on ground of defection under tenth schedule; the issue on hand,

when examined it fit into para 2 (1) (a) of tenth schedule which reads as under:

“2. Disqualification on ground of defection.—(1) Subject to the

provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5, a member of a House belonging to any

political party shall be disqualified for being a member of the House—

(a) if he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political

party; or

TELANGANA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

[Part-II

(b) x x x x x x

Explanation—For the purposes of this sub-paragraph,—

(a) an elected member of a House shall be deemed to belong to the

political party, if any, by which he was set up as a candidate for election as

such member;

(b) a nominated member of a House shall,—

(i) where he is a member of any political party on the date of his

nomination as such member, be deemed to belong to such political

party;

(ii) in any other case, be deemed to belong to the political party

of which he becomes, or, as the case may be, first becomes, a member

before the expiry of six months from the date on which he takes his

seat after complying with the requirements of article 99 or, as the case

may be, article 188.

(2) x x x x x x

(3) A nominated member of a House shall be disqualified for being a member

of the House if he joins any political party after the expiry of six months from the

date on which he takes his seat after complying with the requirements of article 99

or, as the case may be, article 188.

(4) x x x x x

Therefore, the above contention of the respondent is rejected.

13.

Paragraph 2 (1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule states that ‘a member of a House

belonging to a political party shall be disqualified for being a member of the House, if

he has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party’. The term

‘voluntarily given up membership’ has been amply clarified by the Supreme Court in

its judgment, dated the 9^th February, 1994, in Ravi Naik Vs Union of India [1994 AIR

1558, 1994 SCR (1), 754, 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 641, JT 1994 (1) 551, 1994 SCALE (1)

487], wherein the Court had inter alia observed as follows:-

“The words ‘voluntarily given up his membership’ are not synonymous with

‘resignation’ and have a wider connotation. A person may voluntarily give up his

membership of a political party even though he has not tendered his resignation

from the membership of that party. Even in the absence of a formal resignation

from the member an inference can be drawn from the conduct of a member that he

has voluntarily given up his membership of the political party to which he belongs.”

In the same case, the Supreme Court had upheld the decision of the Speaker of the

Goa Legislative Assembly disqualifying two MLAs, who were elected on the ticket of

January 16, 2019]

TELANGANA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

G -660/3.

the Mahrashtrawadi Gomantak Party (MGP), on the conduct alone of their

accompanying the Leader of the Congress (I) Legislature Party in Goa, when he met

the Governor to show that he had the support of twenty MLAs.

14.

The Supreme Court in its orders, dated the 24^th of January, 1996, in G.

Viswanathan Vs. The Hon’ble Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Madras &

Another [1996 AIR 1050, 1996 SCC (2) 353, JT 1996 (1) 607, 1996 SCALE (1) 531],

had also inter alia observed as follows:

“The act of voluntarily giving up the membership of the

political party may be either express or implied.”

15.

In view of such authoritative pronouncements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

while deciding the petition in which the allegation is of the violation of paragraph 2

(1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule, the role of the Chairman, as the designated authority,

is only in the domain of ascertaining the facts and once the facts are gathered or

placed to show some action, express or implied, within the meaning of paragraph 2

(1) (a) of the Tenth Schedule, to take a decision in the matter. The limited role

which a Presiding Officer has to perform under the above-cited paragraph of the

Tenth Schedule has been amply clarified by the Supreme Court in Dr. Mahachandra

Prasad Singh Vs. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council & Ors [(2004) 8 SCC 747],

wherein, it had observed as under:-

“It may be noticed that the nature and degree of inquiry required to be

conducted for various contingencies contemplated by paragraph 2 of the

Tenth Schedule may be different. So far as clause (a) of paragraph 2 (1) is

concerned, the inquiry would be a limited one, namely, as to whether a

member of the House belonging to any political party has voluntarily given up

his membership of such political party.”

16. As such, it now remains for me to decide whether expressly or impliedly, that

the Respondent has voluntarily given up the membership of his political party,

namely, TRS Party. From the actions of the Respondent and based on the material/

evidence presented before me, it can be inferred that he has voluntarily given up his

membership to TRS Party.

TELANGANA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

[Part-II

17. After taking into account the facts of the case, the Counsel for the

respondent’s oral submissions during the personal hearing on 12.01.2019 and the

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which were cited by the Counsel for the

Petitioners particularly the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi S Naik

Vs Union of India and similar anti defection cases, it is crystal clear that the

respondent, namely Sri K. Yadava Reddy, by his conduct and action has voluntarily

given up his membership to the political party, viz., TRS Party, to which he was a

member as on the date of his election to the Telangana Legislative Council.

18. Therefore, I hold that the respondent, Sri K. Yadava Reddy has incurred

disqualification for being a Member of the Telangana Legislative Council in terms of

para 2 (1) (a) of the tenth schedule to the Constitution of India. He has thus

ceased to be a Member of the Telangana Legislative Council, with immediate effect.

I decide and declare accordingly.

K. SWAMY GOUD,

Chairman,

Telangana Legislative Council.

Hyderabad,

V. NARASIMHA CHARYULU,

16-01-2019.

Secretary to State Legislature.

January 16, 2019]

TELANGANA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

Printed and Published by the Commissioner of Printing, Government of Telangana at Government Central Press, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.

–––x–––

EXHIBITS MARKED

Sl.

Exhibit

Date

Description of the Document

EXP1

4.6.2015

Notification

issued

under

Section

Representation of the People Act, 1951 issued in

G.O.Ms.No.203,

General

Administration

(Elecs.)

Department, Dt.4.6.2015.

EXP2

24.11.2018

Copy of the Newspaper item published in Andhra

Jyothi Newspaper.

EXP3

24.11.2018

Copy of the Newspaper item published in Andhra

Prabha Newspaper.

EXP4

24.11.2018

Copy of the Newspaper item published in Vaartha

Newspaper.

EXP5

24.11.2018

Copy of the Newspaper item published in Andhra

Bhoomi Newspaper.

EXP6

24.11.2018

Copy of the Newspaper item published in Eenadu

Newspaper.

EXP7

CD relating to Paper Clippings.

EXP8

CD relating to Videograph.

K. SWAMY GOUD,

Chairman,

Telangana Legislative Council.

Hyderabad,

V. NARASIMHA CHARYULU,

16-01-2019.

Secretary to State Legislature.