Telangana High Court hears pleas challenging GHMC delimitation exercise
The Telangana HC heard writ petitions challenging the ongoing delimitation exercise, with petitioners alleging arbitrary ward mergers, violation of decentralisation principles, and lack of transparency. Senior counsel argued the process undermines local self-governance and meaningful public objections
Hyderabad: Justice B Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday heard a batch of writ petitions challenging the ongoing delimitation exercise being undertaken by the authorities. The petitions, filed by Nagendra Prakash Reddy and others, questioned the legality of the entire process, alleging that it is arbitrary and violative of constitutional principles.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Counsel L Ravichander contended that the very spirit of the Constitution, particularly after the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, is rooted in decentralisation. He argued that large-scale amalgamation of wards runs directly contrary to that principle and defeats the purpose of empowering local self-governance.
The senior counsel also took serious exception to the pace at which the authorities were proceeding. He pointed out that the Commissioner received a report on December 5 proposing the merger of nearly 300 wards, and within four days, on December 9, a preliminary notification was issued. Such haste, he submitted, reflected an approach akin to an invader marching into smaller kingdoms, with little regard for democratic processes.
He further highlighted what he termed a fundamental anomaly in the exercise. According to him, the population parameters of the existing GHMC area, spread over about 650 square kilometres, were being used to decide the fate of an expanded jurisdiction extending up to nearly 2,000 square kilometres. This, he argued, was inherently irrational.
Another major grievance raised was the lack of basic material to enable meaningful objections. It was pointed out that neither ward-wise population figures nor proper maps were made available, rendering the so-called enquiry process an empty formality.
On facts, the petitioners also drew the court’s attention to specific instances, including the exclusion of the core area of Langer Houz from the ward concerned, which according to them demonstrated the arbitrary manner in which boundaries were being redrawn.
The matter was adjourned for further hearing.
