“The evil of political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not combated, it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles which sustain it. With this object, an assurance was given in the Address by the President to Parliament that the Government intended to introduce in the current session of Parliament an anti-defection Bill. This Bill is meant for outlawing defection and fulfilling the above assurance.”

Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing the Tenth Schedule in the Constitution by the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act, 1985].

Unprincipled defection is a political and social evil. People have grown distrustful of the emotive political exultations that such floor-crossings belong to the sacred area of freedom of conscience, or of the right to dissent or of intellectual freedom. The anti-defection law seeks to recognise the practical need to place the proprieties of political and personal conduct — whose awkward erosion and grotesque manifestations have been the bane of the times — above certain theoretical assumptions which in reality have fallen into a morass of personal and political degradation. (Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu [1]).

Aggrieved by the order of the Speaker of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly, in Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2007 dated 22.12.2008, declaring that they were disqualified from continuing as members of the 12th Legislative Assembly under para 2(1)(a) of the tenth schedule, and that their seats had fallen vacant, respondents 3 and 6 therein have filed these two writ petitions. A writ of Certiorari is sought to quash the said order and to declare that they continue to be members of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The 2nd respondent in these two writ petitions was the petitioner in D.P.No.1 of 2007. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in D.P.No.1 of 2007.

D.P.No.1 of 2007 was filed before the Speaker contending that the respondents therein, including the petitioners in these two writ petitions, were set up and elected on the Telangana Rastra Samithi (TRS) party ticket, that they were elected as members of the Legislative Assembly in the general elections held in 2004, that TRS party had set up two candidates i.e. (1) Sri H.A.Rahman and (2) Sri M.Sudarshana Rao to contest in the elections to the A.P. State Legislative Council held on 22.03.2007, that all the 9 respondents had openly disobeyed the decision of the TRS political party and had proposed the nomination of Sri Kasani Gnaneswar, the President of Mahajan Party, as an independent candidate, that their conduct amounted to their having voluntarily given up membership of the TRS political and legislature party and that they were disqualified from continuing as members, of the A.P. State Legislative Assembly, under Article 191(2) read with para 2(1)(a) of the tenth schedule of the Constitution of India. A common counter affidavit was filed, in D.P.No.1 of 2007, on behalf of all the 9 respondents.

D.P.No.2 of 2007 was filed, before the Speaker, by the Chief Whip of the TRS party to declare that these 9 MLAs had suffered disqualification, under para 2(1)(b) of the tenth schedule, on the ground that they had not only proposed the name of Sri Kasani Gnaneswar but had also set up and supported him, that they had celebrated his victory though a resolution had been passed by the TRS party on 05.03.2007 to set up two candidates, and a whip was issued on 19.03.2007 to all MLAs of TRS legislature party, including the nine respondents, which was widely published in the newspapers. However, D.P.No.2 of 2007 was not pressed.

In D.P.No.1 of 2007, the Speaker framed 7 points for consideration. The petitioner, (2nd respondent in these two writ petitions), examined himself as a witness. Exs.P.1 to P.21 were marked. Respondent no.3, (the petitioner in W.P.No.28453 of