HC dismisses plea against bypoll notification to 2 MLC seats in Telangana

Hyderabad: On Thursday, the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging ECI’s decision to hold by-elections in the two vacant seats of the Telangana Legislative Council.

Dismissing the plea by P Karthik Reddy, national spokesperson of the BRS party, the court said that notification for holding elections to the MLCs has already been issued and the elections are scheduled to be held on January 29. Hence, under Article 329 (b) of the Constitution, the court cannot interfere in this issue.

The petitioner challenged the validity of the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) announcement on January 4 for conducting by-elections to the two seats in the TS Legislative Council, which went vacant after Kadiyam Srihari and Padi Kowshik Reddy resigned from their respective seats in the Telangana Legislative Council on December 9, 2023.

The court said that the ECI’s announcement aligns with Section 151 of the RP Act. Therefore, the claim that it violates Article 171(4) of the Constitution of India does not deserve acceptance.

The court said that it is evident that a separate public notice under Rule 3 of the conduct rules of 1961 elections is being issued which contemplates that separate nomination papers are required to be filed by the candidates and a separate set of colour ballot papers white and pink have to be used.

Mukul Rohatgi, a senior advocate, practising in the Supreme Court, contended that Kadiyam Srihari and Padi Kowshik Reddy were elected by members of the Legislative Assembly under the Assembly Constituency as per the procedure laid down under Article 171(3) (d) of the Constitution of India referred to Article 171(4) of the Constitution of India where it is contended that the said election which requires to be filled up by a single transferable vote.

The press communication issued by the ECI violates Article 171(4) of the Constitution of India as well as Rule 70 of the conduct of election rules, 1960, he said. It was also pointed out that since a notification has not been issued by the ECI, therefore, the bar contained in Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India, does not apply.

Reliance has been made in Judgment 2000 (8) SC, 216 by the senior counsel. The judicial intervention is permissible to correct or smoothen the election proceeding and to remove the obstacle therein.

Countering the arguments, Avinash Desai, senior counsel for the ECI, informed the court that Article 171 contemplates filling up the seats which arise at the end of the term of office of a member and the action of the ECI in initiating the process of election aligns with Section 151 of the RP Act.

The notification for the said election has already been issued and a copy of the notification is before the court and the elections are scheduled to be held on January 29.

The senior counsel further urged that the bar contained in Article 329 b of the Constitution of India applies, therefore the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The grounds of infringement of Article 171(4) of the Constitution of India can be raised in an election petition and the Constitution does not contemplate two challenges in respect of the same election.

After hearing both arguments, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti dismissed the writ petition.