##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT APPEAL No.118 of 2026

DATE: 29.01.2026

BETWEEN:

Allam Nagaraju.

….Appellant

AND

Union of India and 5 others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is

preferred against the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.1765 of 2026 whereby the learned Single

Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein

challenging the rejection of his nomination for election to the Bar

Council of Telangana.

Factual background (in brief)

2. The appellant, a practising advocate, submitted his nomination

on 29.12.2025 for election to the Bar Council of Telangana, notified in

pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

M. Vardhan v. Union of India, 1 Writ Petition(C) No.1319 of 2013 dated 18.11.2025. The Scrutinizing Officer (Respondent

::2::

No. 4 herein – the Advocate General for the State of Telangana)

rejected the nomination on 03.01.2026 vide ROC.Ele.No.40 of 2026

on the ground that three criminal cases were pending against the

appellant, attracting disqualification under amended Rule 4 of the Bar

Council of India Rules, 2023 (hereinafter, “the Rules”). The appellant’s

appeal before the High-Powered Election Committee (Phase-I) and

subsequent revision before the High-Powered Supervisory Election

Committee were dismissed on 07.01.2026 and 15.01.2026

respectively. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition before this

Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the

impugned order dated 28.01.2026. Hence, this writ appeal.

3. Heard Sri Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for appellant,

Sri A.Kranti Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri

B.Ravinith Singh representing Sri Adesh Varma, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 and Sri N.Gangadhar representing Sri J.Manikanta

Reddy, learned counsel for Bar Council of Telangana for respondent

No.3 and perused the record.

Submissions of learned counsel for appellant

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has made the following

submissions:

i. That the disqualification under amended Rule 4 of the Rules is

attracted only if “two or more criminal cases of a serious nature

(meaning offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years

::3::

or more) are pending”. The clarification dated 17.12.2025

defines “pending” as a case where charges have been framed.

Out of the three cases against the appellant, only in C.C.No.635

of 2015 have charges, been framed (involving offences under

Sections 467 and 389 IPC, punishable with more than seven

years). In C.C.No.613 of 2019 (Section 382 IPC), no charges are

framed. In C.C.No.2456 of 2022 (Section 452 IPC), the

maximum punishment is “imprisonment which may extend to

seven years”, which does not fall within “seven years or more”.

Therefore, the appellant does not have two pending cases of the

requisite seriousness, to attract disqualification under Rule 4 of

the Rules.

ii. That the learned counsel by placing reliance on Arnesh Kumar

v. State of Bihar2 and Section 41 Cr.P.C., argued that an

offence punishable with imprisonment “which may extend to

seven years” is classified separately from offences punishable

with “seven years or more”. Section 452 IPC, being in the former

category, should be excluded from the disqualification criteria.

iii. That the Scrutinizing Officer acted on a WhatsApp message,

and the committees passed non-speaking orders without proper

application of mind. The appellant’s right to a fair hearing and

democratic participation was violated.

2 (2014) 8 SCC 273

::4::

iv. That the finality clause in the election notification cannot oust

the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226.

The rejection was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(c)

of the Constitution.

Submissions of learned counsel for respondents

5. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of t