SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1802

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
The Telangana State Election Commission, Rep. by the Commissioner - Appellant
Vs.
Ms.Chinthamalla Kalpana, D/o.Gopal Dharavah and others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1371 of 2025
Decided On : 02-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P Sudheer Rao
For the Respondent: TPS Harsha

Court ruled that the interim order allowing inclusion of a voter's name in electoral rolls upholds electoral integrity, even pending final resolution of eligibility challenges.

Headnote:(A) Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 - Section 11 - Electoral Rolls - Writ Petitioner’s name was omitted from electoral rolls for local elections despite being recognized as a voter - The order to include her name was affirmed, noting no irreparable harm from conducting elections while awaiting final resolution. (Paras 2, 4, 11, 14, 17)

(B) Election Law - Principles of fair electoral process - The court emphasized safeguarding the integrity of elections, including the roles of stakeholders in ensuring free and fair elections. (Paras 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
This Writ Appeal stemmed from a Single Judge’s order allowing the Writ Petitioner to participate in local elections despite her name not being included in the local electoral rolls, while she was recognized in the national electoral database.

Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed as no irreparable prejudice would result from allowing the elections to proceed even with the Writ Petitioner’s case pending.

Issues: The issues addressed were whether the Writ Petitioner could be allowed to vote without her name listed and the implications of the interim order on the election process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no illegality or injustice would occur by allowing the interim order to stand, emphasizing the need for elections to proceed fairly and without undue delay.

Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. interim order allowing participation in elections (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments on the legality of inclusion in electoral rolls (Para 5 , 6)
3. defense of the writ petitioner on electoral registration (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court's consideration of interim nature and potential remedies (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. importance of upholding democratic election processes (Para 13 , 14)
6. testing maintainability of interim orders in appeals (Para 15 , 16)
7. conclusion and dismissal of the appeal (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar)

Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Sudheer Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State Election Commission, Sri T.P.S.Harsha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kopal Sharraf, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8/ Election Commission of India.

2. The Appeal arises out of an interim order dated 28.11.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.36510 of 2025 directing to consider the name of the Writ Petitioner for participating in the ensuing Elections to Indugula Village and Gram Panchayat with a finding that her name has to be included in the Electoral Rolls of the Gram Panchayat concerned.

3. The Writ Petitioner filed the Writ Petition by way of Lunch Motion seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not including the name of the Writ Petitioner in the Electoral Rolls (Voters List) of Indugula village, Madugulapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District which is reserved for ST Category, as illegal.

4. The learned Single Judge considering the issue primarily held that since the petitioner’s name is appearing in the list of Election Commission of India as resident of concerned Gram Panchayat before the date of Election Notification, her name has to be included in the Electoral Rolls of the concerned Gram Panchayat, thereby directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in participating in the ensuing Elections.

5. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, kearned Senior Counsel appearing for the Telangana State Election Commission contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to Section 11 of The Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for short ‘The Act’) as the Electoral Roll for the Gram Panchayat shall be with reference to the qualifying date as may be prescribed by the State Election Commission. The State Election Commission notified 01.07.2025 as the qualifying date vide its Notification dated 26.08.2025 whereas sub-Section (3) of section 11 of the Act, 2018 specifies that the Electoral Rolls published shall remain in force till fresh Electoral Rolls are published.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further contented that the Electoral Roll of the concerned Assembly Constituencies made by the Electoral Registration Officer will not be part of Electoral Roll of the Gram Panchayat unless it is notified under the Act. Therefore, contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed the respondents in the Writ Petition to consider the case of the Writ Petitioner for participating in the ensuing elections without her name included in the Electoral Rolls of the Gram Panchayat, and prays to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.

7. Sri T.P.S. Harsha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contends that the name of the Writ Petitioner is reflecting as a voter of the Village. In the Election Commission of India Identity card which is downloaded on 26.11.2025 reflects the name of the Writ Petitioner specifically showing the address as ‘H.No.4-16, Indugula village, Madugulapalli, Nalgonda’, and the Track Application, which is submitted on 06.11.2025 duly accepted on 13.11.2025, reflecting the name of the Writ Petitioner as voter of the said Village.

8. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner further contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is only an interim order directing to con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top