Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
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
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH,THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Smt. Maganti Sunitha – Appellant
Versus
The Election Commission of India – Respondent
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
ORDER:
Heard Sri Dama Sheshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P. Mohith Rao, learned counsel for petitioners, and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kopal Sharraf, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and also learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department appears for respondent No.4.
2. Petitioner No.1 claims to be a voter and contesting candidate for Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) in the bye-election of 61-Jubilee Hills Assembly Constituency, as per the schedule of election announced by the Election Commission of India (ECI) vide Memo No.2080/Elecs.D/2025-7 dated 06.10.2025. Petitioner No.2 is a Working President of a political party to which petitioner No.1 belongs.
3. The bye-election has been notified on 13.10.2025 and
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the Election Commission has a duty to rectify discrepancies in the electoral roll to ensure free and fair elections.
The court upheld that procedural compliance in voter registration processes is mandatory, denying bulk objections that lack proper individual submissions as per statutory requirements.
Deletion from electoral rolls must comply with statutory procedures, and a petitioner must exhaust available remedies before seeking judicial review.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the self-contained nature of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and the availability of statutory....
The preparation of electoral roll under Rule 13-D(2-A) is an integral part of the election process, and the writ petition to challenge the electoral roll on the ground of non-compliance with Rule 13-....
Election disputes must be resolved through election petitions as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution, not through writ petitions.
Elections must remain uninterrupted by pre-election challenges, as such grievances can only be adjudicated post-election through an election petition per Article 329(b).
Right to be included in electoral roll or to challenge to inclusion of any name in roll is a right conferred upon an individual and not upon any political party.
Due diligence in following the mandated procedures for inclusion in the Electoral Rolls is crucial, and failure to adhere to the procedures outlined in the Rules of 2023 may result in the dismissal o....
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