Telangana HC questions state’s decision to merge 27 municipalities into GHMC

Hyderabad: Telangana High Court has questioned the constitutional validity of the state government’s decision to merge 27 peripheral municipalities into the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC).

On Monday, the court sought to know whether all mandatory constitutional parameters were examined before notifying the Telangana Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2026, enabling the merger.

Hearing a batch of petitions filed by residents, including R. Lakshman and Rajamoni Raju from Tukkuguda, the High Court asked the state to clarify whether due process under the Constitution had been followed.

Court seeks clarification on Article 243(Q)

The bench specifically referred to Article 243(Q)(2) of the Constitution and questioned whether the government had assessed the required criteria, such as population size and density, percentage of non-agricultural employment, revenue generated for local administration, and economic viability, and other relevant factors.

The court asked whether the merger was carried out strictly in accordance with constitutional provisions.

Petitioners challenge Amendment Act

Senior counsel L. Ravichander, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the merger was not constitutionally valid and that the government had failed to comply with Articles 243(Q) and 243(U). He contended that merely enacting a law does not automatically validate actions that are unconstitutional.

He further submitted that rural-character areas were being merged into the core urban body without proper justification, which, according to him, violates constitutional safeguards.

State defends Legislative Authority

Advocate General A. Sudarshan Reddy defended the government’s decision, stating that the Assembly had already passed the amendment Act and that the legislature possesses the authority to enact such a law. He argued that once legislative competence is established, courts should not interfere.

However, he assured the court that details regarding whether the exercise under Article 243(Q)(2) was conducted before the merger would be furnished in the government’s counter-affidavit.

No Stay, four weeks for counter

While the petitioners clarified that they were not seeking to stall the proposed GHMC elections, they urged the court to ensure that what they termed an “illegal merger” does not continue.

The High Court declined to grant an interim stay but directed the State government to file its counter affidavit within four weeks, keeping the constitutional questions open for further examination.