Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Foreign Nationals Entitled to Article 22(1) Grounds of Arrest in Known Language: Karnataka HC Sets at Liberty but Orders Handover to FRRO
11 Mar 2026
Madras HC Permits CBSE Student to Appear for Maths as Additional Subject Despite Policy Violation in Peculiar 'Rat Race' Circumstances
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Neha Rathore
11 Mar 2026
Menaka Guruswamy Elected India's First Openly Queer Rajya Sabha MP
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
Erragam Reddy Subba Reddy, S/o E Venkata Subba Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
1. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21661 of 2025; Sri S. Sri Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing (online) on behalf of Sri Gouthami Surapareddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21648 of 2025; Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Shaik Md. Ismail, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.14 in W.P.No.21661 of 2025 and also on behalf of Sri K. Yashwanth, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7 in W.P.No.21648 of 2025; Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General for the State and Sri S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for State Election Commission appeared through online.
2. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the inaction on the part of the State Election Commission in acting on the Representations made by the Writ Petition
Writ petitions challenging election irregularities must be addressed by election tribunals, not courts, emphasizing the constitutional bar on judicial interference in electoral matters.
Election disputes must be addressed through statutory remedies, and writ petitions are not maintainable when an alternative remedy exists under the relevant election laws.
The court ruled that election disputes must be resolved through statutory remedies as outlined in the West Bengal Panchayat Elections Act, 2003, and cannot be addressed via writ petitions due to cons....
The validity of the elections must be tested in election petitions under Section 176(5) of the 1994 Act.
Election disputes must be resolved through election petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, not through writ petitions, due to the constitutional bar under Article 329(b).
Election disputes must be resolved through election petitions as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution, not through writ petitions.
A writ petition is not maintainable to challenge an order of rejection of nomination paper by the Returning Officer/competent authority having regard to the provisions in Article 243-O of the Constit....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article