Danam Nagender’s disqualification as a member of the Telangana Assembly has created an unusual legal and political situation in the Khairatabad constituency. Although the Supreme Court on September 24 upheld his disqualification under the anti-defection law, Nagender can still contest the by-election to the seat that became vacant following his disqualification.
Nagender was elected from Khairatabad on a Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) ticket in the 2023 Telangana Assembly election. He later joined the Congress and contested the 2024 Lok Sabha election from Secunderabad as a Congress candidate while continuing to remain an MLA. The Telangana High Court subsequently held that this amounted to voluntarily giving up his BRS membership and disqualified him with effect from April 23, 2024.
The Supreme Court upheld that decision on September 24, dismissing Nagender’s challenge. The court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s ruling and held that his conduct attracted the anti-defection provisions of the Constitution.
However, the anti-defection law does not automatically prevent a person disqualified under the Tenth Schedule from contesting another election. This distinction comes from the wording of Article 191 of the Constitution. Article 191(2), which deals with disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, refers to disqualification from being a member of the House. It does not separately state that such a person is disqualified from being chosen as a member in a subsequent election.
The Supreme Court had already considered this issue in its 2019 judgment concerning Karnataka legislators. It held that disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, by itself, does not create an additional bar preventing the person from contesting a subsequent election. The Speaker also cannot independently impose a ban preventing a disqualified legislator from contesting for the remainder of the Assembly’s term.
This creates the central legal question in Nagender’s case: although he lost his Assembly membership because of defection, the law does not necessarily prevent him from asking the voters of the same constituency to elect him again.
The situation is particularly significant because the Khairatabad by-election exists because of the disqualification itself. The Telangana High Court declared the Assembly seat vacant after setting aside the Speaker’s earlier decision that had allowed Nagender to remain an MLA.
Nagender has said he is prepared to contest the by-election. After the Supreme Court verdict, he said he welcomed the decision and would face the election, expressing confidence about his political support in Khairatabad.
The issue has also triggered political reactions. The BRS has challenged Nagender to face the voters again, while BJP leaders have used the judgment to argue that legislators who change parties should seek a fresh mandate. These are political positions rather than findings of the Supreme Court about whether Nagender should or should not contest.
The Khairatabad case therefore highlights a distinction within India’s anti-defection framework. The law can remove a legislator from the House for defection, while the constitutional framework may still allow that individual to seek election again. Whether that produces the desired political accountability is a matter of public and legislative debate, but the present legal position allows a Tenth Schedule-disqualified legislator to contest a subsequent election unless another independent disqualification applies.