The High Court cannot interfere in ongoing elections; electoral grievances must be addressed through an Election Petition after the election, as stipulated in Article 329 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

1. The present Writ Petition is filed by a candidate set up by the Telangana Republican Party (TRP), who is contesting by-election to the 61-Jubliee Hills Assembly Constituency, seeking a declaration that the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4 i.e., the Election Commission of India, the Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana State, the Commissioner, GHMC and the Returning Officer, 61-Jubliee Hills, Assembly Constituency & RDO, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad on the representation of the petitioner dated 03.11.2025, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri M.A. Mujeeb, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Govardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Kopal Sharraf, learned Standing Counsel for Election Commission of India for the respondents and perused the record.

3. The core grievance of the petitioner is that he was allotted the free symbol i.e., “Sl.No.101 – Mike.” And that on 03.11.2025 during a mock poll, the petitioner noticed that the “Mike symbol” displayed on the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and the Ballot Papers was not “as it is” specified by the Election Commission of India. The petitioner alleges that the displayed symbol had a poor quality and was of a different thickness and was not showing the line at the bottom of the mike, which could confuse the voters and undermine his candidature.

4. The petitioner has made a formal representation dated 03.11.2025 (Ex.P1) to respondent No.4 i.e., the Returning Officer, requesting rectification of the symbol displayed. The respondent No.4 by endorsement dated 06.11.2025 (Ex.P2) rejected the request made by the petitioner, stating that the application of the petitioner could not be considered at this juncture. The respondent No.4 further noted that the request had been filed during the mock polls, after the completion of the commissioning of the EVMs and VVPATs. In the endorsement, respondent No.4 also asserted that ample opportunity had been provided earlier to the candidates for verification.

5. The petitioner made another representation to respondent No.2 through a letter dated 07.11.2025 (Ex.P3) and has also approached this Court on the very same day by way of the present Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4 on the representation dated 03.11.2025 vide Ex.P1, as illegal and arbitrary and further seeking a direction to the Election authorities to rectify his symbol displayed on the EVMs, Ballot papers and VVPATs.

Contentions on behalf of the petitioner:

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the inaction and the refusal on the part of respondent No.4 to correct the display of the symbol is illegal, arbitrary and unjust besides being misuse of the power under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

7. Learned counsel further contended that the incorrectly rendered/displayed symbols with poor quality will inevitably confuse the electorate, thereby, preventing voters from identifying their chosen candidate, this, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, constitutes a substantial defect in the election process that makes democracy a mockery.

8. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has no other efficacious alternative remedy to secure the relief of correction of his election symbol before the election, which compelled him to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Learned counsel further contended that the objection with regard to the poor qu