ORDER :

RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. The petitioner, Mr. R. Bhoopathi Reddy, has challenged the legality of the order dated 16.01.2019, passed by the Chairman, Telangana Legislative Council (‘the Council’, for short), the respondent No. 1, whereby the petitioner was declared as disqualified as a Member of the Council, in terms of Para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, and has been declared “to cease to be a Member of the Telangana Legislative Council (‘M.L.C.’, for short) with immediate effect”.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had contested the biennial elections held on 12.12.2015, for the Council, from the constituency of Nizamabad Local Authorities. In the said election, he was declared as having been unanimously elected to the Council. However, during the course of his tenure, as a M.L.C., the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 submitted a disqualification petition under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, read with Rule 6 of the Members of the Telangana Legislative Council (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules (‘the Rules’, for short) against the petitioner.

3. In the petition, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 alleged that, although the petitioner was elected as a member of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi Party (‘TRS Party’, for short), he had indulged in anti-party activities. For, on 14.09.2018 he had joined the Indian National Congress Party (‘INC Party’, for short). He had also contested on behalf of the INC Party, in the pre-elections, from the Nizamabad Rural Assembly Constituency for the Telangana State Legislative Assembly held on 07.12.2018.

4. Subsequently, on 18.12.2018 respondent No. 1 issued a notice to the petitioner wherein he was called to submit his comments within seven days. The petitioner submitted his counter. According to the petitioner, he was unanimously elected as M.L.C. from Nizamabad Local Authorities’ Constituency. Thus, his election is not based on a party symbol. Moreover, the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 does not apply to such election. Further, he pleaded that the disqualification petition was based on newspaper clippings, media reports, and videos whose authenticity he challenged. He further pleaded that he had fought the election on the plank of the INC Party as a part of the strategy of the TRS Party. Hence, his association with the INC Party was not a “voluntary” one, but was due to the direction of the TRS Party itself. Moreover, since he had lost the election held for the State Legislative Assembly on 07.12.2018, it does not amount “to voluntarily giving up his membership” of the TRS Party. Hence, the petitioner claimed that he has neither acted against the interests of the TRS Party, nor earned any disqualification under Para 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution of India. However, by order dated 16.01.2019, as mentioned hereinabove, the respondent No. 1 declared the petitioner as disqualified from being a M.L.C. and declared that “he ceases to be M.L.C. with immediate effect”. Hence, this petition before this court.

5. Mr. Anand Kumar Kapoor, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has not just challenged the impugned order dated 16.01.2019, but has more so challenged the constitutional validity of the Para 8 of the Tenth Schedule of Constitution of India, and the constitutional validity of Rule 7(4) of the Rules. While challenging the constitutional validity of Para 8 of the Tenth Schedule of Constitution of India, the learned counsel has raised the following contentions:-

Firstly, the Speaker/Chairman being the head of the Legislature exercises certain executive powers of the Legislature. Under Para 8 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, the Speaker/Chairman of the Assembly or the Legislative Council is also bestowed with ‘legislative powers’. For the power to enact the rules has been bestowed upon the Speaker/ Chairman. Meanwhile, under Para 6 of the Tenth Schedule of the