Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 790

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, CJI, Joymalya Bagchi, Vipul M. Pancholi, J.
Pranesh M.K. – Appellant
Versus
A.V. Gayathri Shanthegowda & Ors. ETC. ETC. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9032-9034 OF 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 4086-4088 of 2025) With Civil Appeal No. 9035 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17748 of 2023), Civil Appeal No. 9036 of 2026, (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17017 of 2023), Civil Appeal No. 9037 OF 2026, (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21599 of 2023)
Decided On : 16-07-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, AOR Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Mr. S Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kanyalur, Adv. Ms. Divya Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ashritsai Torgal, Adv. Ms. Tanya Chhillar, Adv. Ms. Akhila Palem, Adv. Ms. Salonee Paranjape, Adv. Mr. Abhishekh Singh, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Agam Sharma, AOR Ms. Archi Aggarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s): A.N. Venugopala Gowda, Sr. Adv. Nishant A.V., Adv. Ms. Garima Jain, AOR Mohit Singh, Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishanth Av, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Mrs. Anumita Verma, Adv. Ms. Pavani Verma, Adv. Ms. Megha Bhati, Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Adv. Mrs. Supreeta Patil, Adv. Mr. Nishant Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Kotresh A M, Adv. M/s S-legal Associates, AOR Mr. K. V. Muthu Kumar, AOR Ms. S Selvakumari, Adv. Ms. Gagandeep Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Shreemoyee Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. A.N. Venugopala Gowda, Sr. Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Nishanth Av, Adv. Mr. Nishant Av, Adv. Mr. Vishwaditya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Parikshit Pitale, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv. Ms. Kaniksha Singh, Adv. Ms. Subornodeep Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Suganya Sivasamy, Adv. Ms. Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, AOR V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prateek Kumar, AOR Devansh Rai, Adv. Harshed Sundar, Adv. Rahul Narang, Adv. Nihar Dharmadhikari, Adv. Aishwarya Raj Mishra, Adv. Mr. K. Shiva, AOR Mr. Saurabh Ankit, Adv. Ms. Amiti Gupta, Adv. Mr. Agam Sharma, AOR Ms. Archi Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR K. M. Nataraj, ASG Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Nikita Capoor, Adv. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Ritika Ranjan, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR

Nominated members of local government institutions, being constitutionally barred from voting in municipal meetings, are ineligible to participate in Legislative Council elections. Their inclusion in electoral rolls contradicts the democratic mandate of representative governance and renders their votes void, warranting their exclusion from electoral results.

Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Section 27(2)(b) - Constitution of India - Articles 171(3)(a) and 243-R - Legislative Council elections - Local Authorities Constituency - Eligibility of nominated members to vote - Nominated members of local bodies, who are precluded from voting in municipal meetings, are constitutionally and statutorily ineligible to vote in elections to the Legislative Council - Inclusion of such members in electoral rolls is void ab initio - The term 'every member' must be interpreted harmoniously with the constitutional scheme of democratic decentralization and representative governance. (Paras 35, 36 and 37)

(B) Election Law - Electoral Rolls - Finality - Doctrine of finality does not override constitutional mandates - Where inclusion of voters is found to be unconstitutional, such rolls can be challenged even after finalization - The principle of ballot secrecy is vital but does not preclude segregation of invalid votes cast by constitutionally ineligible persons to ensure free and fair elections. (Paras 40, 45 and 46)

Facts of the case:
The election process for a legislative body from a local authorities constituency was challenged. Disqualification was claimed due to the inclusion of nominated members in the electoral rolls, arguing they lacked voting rights. Lower courts had previously ruled the inclusion of such nominated members as unconstitutional. A recount was ordered to exclude these votes, which significantly impacted the narrow margin of victory. The matter reached the Supreme Court to determine the legality of these votes and the correctness of the recount order.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that nominated members, excluded from voting in local administrative meetings, cannot vote in higher legislative elections, as their role is advisory. The inclusion of these members in the electoral register was found to be void ab initio, satisfying the test for material impact on election results. The direction for a recount was upheld as a necessary consequence of identifying invalid votes.

Issues: The main issues were whether nominated members of local self-governing institutions possess a constitutional right to vote in Legislative Council elections and whether the electoral rolls could be challenged post-publication where the fundamental composition of the electorate is questioned.

Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional objective of democratic local self-governance relies on elected representatives; allowing nominated members to vote would contradict the constitutional structure established by the amendment introducing Part IX-A. Consequently, statutory provisions referring to 'every member' must be read as referring only to elected representatives to maintain the purity of the electoral process.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background regarding the election dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. parties' contentions on eligibility, electoral roll finality, and material effect. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. maintainability of writ petitions challenging electoral rolls before election tribunals. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. constitutional and statutory exclusion of nominated members from electoral colleges. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
5. constitutional violations render electoral roll finality principles inapplicable. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
6. final confirmation of electoral disqualification and consequential election recounting. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)

JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the following judgments and order:

B. The common judgment and order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal Nos. 1247, 1256 and 1250 of 2022, whereby the Division Bench affirmed the findings of the Single Judge and upheld the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the electoral process, including the eligibility and voting rights of nominated members, which has a direct bearing on the validity of the election in question.

3. The present batch of matters also includes connected Special Leave Petitions arising out of allied proceedings involving similar questions of law and fact. Since the issues involved are substantially overlapping, all the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The present case arises out of the election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from the 12-Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities Constituency (2021). The constituency comprises members of various local bodies including Zilla Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat, Municipal Councils and Town Panchayats. In four Town Panchayats, namely, Koppa, Mudigere, Sringeri and Narasimharajapura, three members each were nominated by the State Government under Section 352 (1)(b) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the KMA”), resulting in a total of 12 nominated councillors, whose names were included in the electoral rolls.

5. Elections were notified on 16.11.2021, polling took place on 10.12.2021 and counting was conducted on 14.12.2021. Out of 2410 votes polled, 2371 votes were valid. The appellant secured 1188 votes (including votes of nominated members), while Respondent No.1 secured 1182 votes and the appellant was declared elected by a narrow margin of 6 votes in accordance with the statutory rules governing the conduct of elections.

6. Following the declaration of results, the inclusion and voting rights of the nominated members became the subject matter of challenge. Writ petitions were filed before the High Court questioning the inclusion of nominated councillors in the electoral rolls. By judgment dated 03.11.2022, the High Court held such inclusion to be invalid and unconstitutional, directing deletion of their names. The said view was affirmed by the Division Bench on 20.04.2023, holding that nominated members do not have the right to vote in Legislative Council elections.

7. Parallelly, election petitions were instituted challenging the appellant’s election on the ground that votes cast by the nominated members were invalid and had materially affected the election result. The appellant contested the said proceedings, inter alia, contending that the electoral rolls had attained finality, that nominated members were validly included in terms of statutory provisions and executive clarification and that it was not possible to identify o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 790

Cases Referred (21)