Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 19671
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N. Tukaramji, J
Samaiah P – Appellant
Versus
District Registrar – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 9805 OF 2026
Important Points
Subject
Election Law - Bar Association Election
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of a vote cast in his favour during the Bodhan Bar Association elections, where the election officer disqualified the ballot for lacking a Swastik mark. This led to a tie and a subsequent decision to share the tenure of the General Secretary post, which the petitioner challenged as illegal and outside the election officer's jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the rejection of the ballot was arbitrary as no bye-law mandated the exclusive use of a Swastik mark, and the election officer lacked the jurisdiction to impose a rotational tenure contrary to established rules.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the ballot was legally sustainable and whether the election officer had the authority to implement a rotational tenure.
Ratio Decidendi: Election officials cannot impose procedural barriers not sanctioned by governing bye-laws to disenfranchise voters, and they cannot invent tenure sharing arrangements that are ultra vires their official powers.
Result: Writ petition allowed; petitioner declared elected.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. Jagadishwar Rao
For the Respondents: Mallareddygari Harthika, G. Dinesh Patil
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of election dispute and relevant factual background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments concerning ballot rejection and rotational tenure. (Para 4) |
| 3. maintainability of writ petition despite alternative remedies. (Para 6) |
| 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? | : Yes |
| 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? | : Yes |
| 3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? | : Yes |
! Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. D. Jagadishwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.
^Counsel for respondents : Ms. Mallareddygari Harthika, learned counsel for respondent No.2;
Mr. G.Dinesh Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai , (1998) 8 SCC 1;
V Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh ,(2021) 6 SCC 771.
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the action of respondent No. 2, the Election Officer, in invalidating one vote cast in favour of the petitioner and in directing that the office of General Secretary be shared between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent for a period of six months each, is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently seeking a declaration that the petitioner has been duly elected as the General Secretary of the Bodhan Bar Association for the year 2026-2027.
2. Heard Mr. D. Jagadishwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Mallareddygari Harthika, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. G. Dinesh Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
3.1. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Bodhan and a member of the Bodhan Bar Association, which is governed by duly approved Bye-laws. Elections to the Bodhan Bar Association for the year 2026-2027 were conducted under the supervision of respondent No.2. The petitioner and respondent No.3 contested for the post of General Secretary. Out of 120 members, 108 members exercised their franchise.
3.2. During the counting process, one ballot cast in favour of the petitioner, bearing a tick mark (✓), was rejected by respondent No.2 on the ground that it did not contain the prescribed Swastik mark. Consequently, both the petitioner and respondent No.3 were shown to have secured 53 votes each. Respondent No.2 thereafter declared that the office of General Secretary would be shared by the petitioner and respondent No.3 for a period of six months each. The petitioner challenges the rejection of the disputed ballot and the conclusions drawn by the election officer/Respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the disputed vote cast in favour of the petitioner is arbitrary and unsustainable, as the intention of the voter was clear and no rule, bye-law, or election instruction mandated the exclusive use of a “Swastik” mark or prohibited marking the ballot with a tick mark. It is contended that the invalidation of the vote materially affected the election result, since inclusion of the said vote would have resulted in the petitioner securing 54 votes and being declared elected as General Secretary for the year 2026-27. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent acted without jurisdiction in directing a rotational tenure of six months each between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, such an arrangement being unknown to the governing bye-laws and election law. The petitioner also assails the rejection of his representation dated 28.03.2026 as mechanical, non-speaking, and violative of the principles of natural justice, contending that the impugned actions disclose non-application of mind and warrant interference by this Court.
5.1. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 2 would submit that, prior to the commencement of polling, specific instructions wer
