Telangana High Court dismisses petition against Kova Lakshmi’s election
The petition claimed that Lakshmi failed to comply with nomination requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
BY LEGAL CORRESPONDENT
Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court has dismissed an election petition filed by Ajmeera Shyam, challenging the election of Kova Lakshmi of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) to the Asifabad Legislative Assembly Constituency (ST). Ajmeera Shyam, who contested on a Congress party ticket in the November 2023 Assembly elections, had lost to Lakshmi.
The petition claimed that Lakshmi failed to comply with nomination requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Shyam’s counsel, Senior Advocate C. Raghu, argued that Lakshmi’s nomination was incomplete as she did not submit five years of income tax returns, alleging that this constituted corrupt practice under Section 123(2) of the Act.
In her defense, Lakshmi, represented by Senior Counsel J. Ramachandra Rao, contended that the petition was improperly filed and that the allegations were frivolous. She maintained that her nomination was correctly accepted and noted that Shyam did not object during the nomination scrutiny process. Rao further argued that Shyam himself had failed to disclose relevant information regarding existing government contracts.
After thorough consideration, Justice Lakshman concluded that the absence of income tax returns in the nomination affidavit did not warrant declaring Lakshmi’s election void under Section 100 of the Act. The judge emphasized that the election process must be protected and that any challenges to an election should only arise from substantial and material non-disclosures.
Justice Lakshman also highlighted the importance of free and fair elections, reiterating that the confidence shown by the electorate should not be easily undermined. The judge pointed out that if Lakshmi’s non-disclosure of income tax returns was deemed substantial, Shyam’s non-disclosure regarding government contracts would similarly warrant scrutiny. The petition was dismissed promptly within the stipulated timeframe of 9 months and 20 days as outlined in Section 86(7) of the Act, reinforcing the legislative intent for timely resolution of election disputes.
High Court considers petition on Bar Council enrolment
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court has taken under consideration a writ petition filed by two law graduates, Pally Vinod Reddy and Nallapu Manideep, who are seeking legal intervention against the Bar Council of Telangana for delaying their enrolment as advocates.
The petitioners argue that the Bar Council’s refusal to enroll candidates born before 1999 is discriminatory and infringes on their constitutional rights. Their applications are reportedly pending due to a three-year educational gap, which they challenge as an unjustified and unconstitutional practice. They assert that the “first come, first serve” rule is not being effectively implemented. In response, the standing counsel for the Bar Council explained that there is a significant backlog of approximately 3,000 applications, emphasizing that enrolment is being processed as efficiently as possible. The counsel noted that candidates with continuous education are not required to submit additional affidavits, while those with educational gaps are required to submit. The petitioners contended that denying enrolment based on educational gaps violates Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to practice a profession. The counsel sought immediate relief, requesting that the petitioners be enrolled within a week. However, the Bar Council’s counsel contended that this timeline is not feasible.
When Justice Vijaysen inquired about a realistic timeline for enrolment, the respondents requested additional time to obtain instructions. After hearing arguments from both sides, the judge adjourned the matter for further adjudication.
High Court issues notice to State on HYDRAA amendment in GHMC Act
The PIL bench of Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao on Friday issued notices to the State government in the public interest litigation case which challenged ordinance promulgated to amend the GHMC Act to empower HYDRAA.
Manchireddy Prashanth Kumar Reddy filed this case challenging the Telangana Ordinance No 4 of 2024 issued on October 3, 2024 as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner accordingly sought court directions to quash the Ordinance.
The bench has adjourned the case for response of the State government.
