As expected, Telangana assembly speaker G Prasad Kumar dismissed the petitions for disqualification of all the 10 Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLAs, who allegedly defected to the Congress, the last two being Danam Nagender and Kadiyam Srihari.
The Speaker clearly stated that there was insufficient evidence to conclusively establish that the legislators had violated the anti-defection law. This made one wonder why the BRS had failed to provide sufficient evidence to get the MLAs disqualified.
Analysts say the BRS leadership has clearly failed to pursue the case effectively on legal and technical grounds. They contend that the party did not present strong procedural evidence before the Speaker to substantiate its allegations.
Morally, too, the BRS had no moral ground to launch a counter-attack on the Congress on the defections, as it was BRS president and former chief minister K Chandrasekhar Rao, who had engineered largescale defection of MLAs from the Congress, Telugu Desam Party and other parties during his two tenures in the name of “realignment of political forces.”
The latest episode of defections has also raised several questions regarding the BRS leadership’s handling of the case.
First of all, the BRS did not suspend the accused MLAs soon after they met chief minister Revanth Reddy and sported Congress “kanduwas” (stoles).
“When the party quickly took a decision to suspend KCR’s own daughter Kalvakuntla Kavitha or former minister Eatala Rajender, why didn’t it do the same in the case of defected MLAs?” an analyst asked.
Secondly, the party did not issue a show-cause notice to any of these alleged defecting MLAs as to why switched their loyalties to the Congress. At least, these notices would have been strong evidence to argue in the Speaker’s court.
The petitions before the speaker were filed by fellow MLAs, but not party president KCR or working president K T Rama Rao. Naturally, the defected MLAs questioned with what right an ordinary party MLA can question them.
The BRS continued to collect contributions of Rs 5,000 each from the defected MLAs’ accounts for BRS Legislature Party expenses, which is an indication that the party still considers the defectors as their own party members.
There were no instances of the MLAs defying a party whip or voting against the BRS in the Assembly — factors often considered crucial in disqualification proceedings under the anti-defection law.
In the case of Danam Nagender, it is true that he had contested the parliamentary elections on a Congress ticket. However, the BRS did not take disciplinary action such as suspension or issuing a formal notice at the time.
All these points lead to a suspicion that the BRS was only trying to use the defection of the MLAs as a political tool to attack the Congress, rather than getting them disqualified.
“The BRS leadership might be apprehensive that if the MLAs are disqualified and by-elections are conducted, the party might not win more than three or four seats and it will only further strengthen the Congress, which in turn will help the latter in the next elections,” an analyst reasoned.