A major controversy has erupted in Telangana as former MLA and BRS leader Chennamaneni Ramesh, who was declared not an Indian citizen by the High Court, continues to draw a monthly pension of approximately Rs 50,000 from the state assembly. This has prompted strong objections from the sitting Congress MLA of Vemulawada, Adi Srinivas, who has demanded an immediate halt to the payments.
Court Ruling and Ongoing Pension
In a significant ruling in December 2024, the Telangana High Court upheld a 2019 order from the Centre, stating that Ramesh was not an Indian citizen. The court found that he had concealed his German citizenship while contesting assembly elections. As a penalty for this suppression of facts, the court imposed a hefty fine of Rs 30 lakh on the BRS leader, which he has paid.
Despite this judicial pronouncement, Ramesh, who represented the Vemulawada constituency for four terms, has been receiving his pension since December 2023. Under standard assembly rules, former MLAs are entitled to pension, medical reimbursement, and other benefits.
Congress MLA's Stern Demand
Vemulawada Congress MLA Adi Srinivas, the petitioner who successfully challenged Ramesh's citizenship in court, has now written to the Telangana assembly secretary. He has urged the official to stop the pension payments to Ramesh immediately and to recover all benefits, emoluments, and salary paid to him since the disqualification.
"I had requested the assembly secretary earlier not to pay Chennamaneni Ramesh his pension as the court had said he committed a fraud by suppressing facts about his citizenship," Srinivas stated. "As there has been no action, I am again requesting the assembly secretary and speaker to stop his pension immediately. I will approach the high court on this issue again, if required."
He raised a fundamental question: "How can a foreigner be eligible for pension benefits from the Indian government?"
Legal Complexities and Official Response
The issue, however, is mired in legal and procedural complexities. Assembly sources indicated that the secretary had previously informed Srinivas that the high court's order did not explicitly mention the recovery of salary or other emoluments from Ramesh. Furthermore, they stated that existing rules lack a provision for making such recoveries.
Adding a legal perspective, former Telangana advocate general K Rama Krishna Reddy clarified that the assembly secretary does not possess adjudicating powers on pension matters. He suggested that the assembly speaker could decide on Ramesh's entitlement post the court case disposal, or Srinivas could approach a 'competent court'.
It is also noted that Srinivas had approached the Supreme Court with a special leave petition, seeking to be declared the elected MLA for the terms Ramesh served. However, in August of this year, the SC declined to intervene, noting it could not 'resurrect' the matter as the assembly term in question had ended.
The argument from Ramesh's camp, as per sources, is that the court order is prospective, not retrospective, and did not specifically address his salary or pension. A source close to Ramesh, who is currently in Germany, emphasized that the Supreme Court also did not comment on these emoluments when the matter was brought before it.
The standoff highlights a potential gap between judicial pronouncements on eligibility and the administrative procedures for withdrawing post-service benefits, leaving the ball in the court of the assembly's presiding officers.
