Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Erragam Reddy Subba Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 August, 2025
APHC010425852025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 21648 OF 2025
Between:
1. ERRAGAM REDDY SUBBA REDDY, S/o E Venkata Subba Reddy Aged
about 52 years, Occ Politician, R/o. 2-136, Kothamadavaram, YSR
Cuddapah.
...Petitioner
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The State Election Commission, Room No.192, Ground Floor, Building
No.5 A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati rep., by its Commissioner.
3. The District CollectorcumElection Officer, Y.S.R Kadapa District, Kadapa.
4. The Returning Officer, Vontimetta ZPTC elections, Y.S.R. District.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Y.S.R Kadapa District.
6. The Deputy Inspector of General, Kurnool Range, Andhra Pradesh
7. Muddu Krishna Reddy, S/o not known Contesting candidate of ruling party.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: GOUTHAMI SURAPAREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: KALEPU YASHWANTH Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2 WRIT PETITION NO: 21661 OF 2025 Between:
1. Thummala Hemanth Reddy,, S/o. Late Thummala Maheswara Reddy Aged about 25 years, R/o. Door No.1-155-A, R.Thummalappali Village, Pulivendula Mandal Y.S.R Kadapa District.
...Petitioner AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principai Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rurai Development, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The State Election Commission, Room No.192, Ground Fioor, Building No.5, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati rep., by its Commissioner.
3. The District CollectorcumEiection Officer, Y.S.R Kadapa District, Kadapa.
4. The Returning OfficercumSpecial Deputy Coilector, Land Acquisition Officer, National High Ways, Kadapa.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, Y.S.R Kadapa District.
6. The Deputy Inspector of General, , Kurnool Range, Andhra Pradesh
7. Mareddy Latha Reddy, D/o. Not known to the Petitioner, R/o. D.N0.4-34A, Kasanuru Viiiage, Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
8. Moyila Siva Kalyan Reddy, , S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, R/o. D.No.1/22, Chinna Kudaala Village, Lingaala Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
9. Ankireddy Suresh Kumar Reddy, , S/o. A. Chinna Pullareddy, Aged about 46 years, R/o. D.No.3-42, Sydapuram Village, Thondur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
10. Thummaluru Anil Kumar Reddy, S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, R/o. D.No.2/20, Pernapadu Village, Vemula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
11. Nagella Samba Siva Reddy, S/o. N. Ankireddy, Aged about 65 years, R/o. D.No.3-5, Pernapadu Village, Vemula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
12. B Raveendra Reddy, S/o. Venkata Ramireddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o. D.N0.2-27-B, Mallela Village, Thondur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
13. Marujolu Gajendranath Reddy, S/o. Not known to the Petitioner R/o. D.No.2-34, Rayalapuram, R. Thummalapalle Village, Pulivendula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
314. Mareddy Jai Bharath Reddy, , S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, R/o. D.N0.4-34A, Kasanuru Village, Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
15. M Vengala Reddy, S/o. M. Pedda Bali Reddy, Aged about 49 years, R/o. D.No.4-8-197-2-2, Narayana College Road, Pulivendula, YSR Kadapa District.
16. Yadati Suneel Reddy, , S/o. Not known to the Petitioner, R/o. D.No.3/111, Mottu Nuthana Palli, E. Kothapalli, Pulivendula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondents:SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondents:GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21661 of 2025; Sri S. Sri Ram, learned Senior Counsel appearing (online) on behalf of Sri Gouthami Surapareddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21648 of 2025; Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Shaik Md. Ismail, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.14 in W.P.No.21661 of 2025 and also on behalf of Sri K. Yashwanth, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7 in W.P.No.21648 of 2025; Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General for the State and Sri S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for State Election Commission appeared through online.
2. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the inaction on the part of the State Election Commission in acting on the Representations made by the Writ Petitioners complaining of various irregularities in the by-election held on 12.08.2025 of Vontimitta Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) and Pulivendula Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC).4
3. The prayer sought in W.P.No.21661 of 2025 is as under:
"...... to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents No.2 to 4 in declaring that the elections in all fifteen (15) Polling Stations of Pulivendula Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency are vitiated and going for Repoll, instead of two (2) Pollling Stations i.e., 3 & 14 Polling Stations and ordering for repoll, inspite of brining to their notice that all the Polling Stations of Pulivendula Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency have been captured by the leaders and supporters of the ruling party for benefitting the respondent No.7 in the present election to the post of ZPTC Member of Pulivendula Constituency as arbitrary, illegal, abdication of the statutory duty cast on them and contrary to the principles of democracy apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct
(a) the respondents No.2 to 4 to call for the CCTV footages and Web-casting videos related to the Polling Stations No.1, 2, 4 to 13 and 15 of Pulivendula Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency and examine the same in the presence of the contesting candidates and to take a decision as to whether they are any irregularities or illegalities in conducting elections and
(b) direct of the respondents No.2 to 4 to declare the elections taken place in Polling Stations No. 1,2,4 to 13 and 15 of Pulivendula Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency are vitiated in case the respondents No.2 to 4 found that there are irregularities and illegal in conducting elections therein and to conduct re-election in said Polling Stations also with adequate police security by deploy Central Armed Reserved Force and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".
4. Since the facts relate to the alleged irregularities committed by the sympathizers and supporters of the Ruling Party candidates and there is inaction on the part of the Official Respondents despite the fact that the Writ Petitioners have made several Representations, the present Writ Petitions are filed. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, these Writ Petitions were heard together at the admission stage and the present Common Order is passed.
5. Before commencement of the arguments on behalf of the Writ Petitioners, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.7 in W.P.No.21648 of 2025 and Respondent No.14 in 5 W.P.No.21661 of 2025 has raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of these Writ Petitions.
Submissions of the Writ Petitioners
6. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21661 of 2025 had led the arguments and has taken this Court through the averments in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. He had submitted that the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court for seeking stay of the conduct of by-election by filing W.P.No.21208 of 2025 inasmuch as the Official Respondents have shifted polling stations without following the due process of law. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that vide Order dated 11.08.2025, the said Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that the Court could not interfere inasmuch as the date of polling is scheduled on the next date i.e., 12.08.2025.
7. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the present Writ Petition, the Writ Petitioner has projected highhanded behaviour of the sympathizers and supporters of the political opponents, thereby resorting to rigging of votes by impersonation. He had taken this Court through the various photographs to indicate that some of the persons standing in the queue of the polling stations do not even belong to the said constituency and they have stood in the queue for the purpose of rigging the votes by way of impersonation. He would also submit that threats were hurled to the agents of the Writ Petitioners who were contesting in the respective ZPTC by- elections, thereby preventing their agents in attending to their duties during the course of polling as well as during the course of counting. He would submit that the sympathizers of the political opponents have threatened the supporters of the Writ Petitioners who were helping during the time of polling and counting as election agents in order to gain advantage of rigging and to prevent the agents from identifying the non-locals for the purpose of preventing rigging. He would also submit that various Representations given by the Writ Petitioners to the Election Officer/District Collector dated 6 08.08.2025 (before the date of polling) and on 11.08.2025 (one day before the date of polling) and also on 12.08.2025 (which is the date of polling) have been completely ignored by the Official Respondents. He would submit that all the incriminating material has been supplied to the Official Respondents seeking proper action but there has not been any response.
8. In response to the preliminary objection on maintainability of these Writ Petitions raised by Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing the Unofficial Respondents, as indicated above, Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the Union Territory of Ladakh and Ors Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Another : 2023 SCC OnLine 1140. In the said case, the Respondent therein namely the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference had applied to the State Election Commissioner seeking allotment of „plough‟ as a symbol for the purpose of contesting the General Elections of Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council. It is the case of the Respondent therein that the said symbol has already been allotted to the same party for participating in the General Elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. As there was inaction on the part of the Election Commissioner, the Respondent therein has filed the Writ Petition. The Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, vide Interim Order dated 09.08.2023 had directed the Writ Petitioner to approach the Election Commission for notifying the reserved symbol „plough‟ already allotted to it with a further direction to the Election Commission to notify the reserved symbol already allotted to the Writ Petitioner in terms of Paras 10 and 10(A) of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 and to further allow the candidates set-up by the Writ Petitioner to contest on the reserved election symbol „plough‟.
9. Having been aggrieved by the directions given by the Learned Single Judge, the Union Territory of Ladakh has filed the Writ Appeal and the same was dismissed on 14.08.2023. Having been aggrieved by the dismissal, the Union Territory of Ladakh and the Election Commission of India have 7 approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court was pleased dismiss the Appeal confirming the Interim Order of the learned Single Judge.
10. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Para Nos.16,37,39,43 & 44 of the said Judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court to justify the maintainability of the present Writ Petition. Para Nos.16,37,39,43 & 44 are usefully extracted hereunder:
"16. It requires no reiteration that the powers of this Court and the High Courts vested under the Constitution cannot be abridged, excluded or taken away, being part of the Basic Structure of our Constitution. Reference need only be made to decisions in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225; Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1; Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625; L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 and more recently, to Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1 and Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited, (2020) 6 SCC 1, all of which were rendered by a Bench of 5 or more learned Judges. Section 12 of the 1997 Act need not detain us. Insofar as Section 13 of the 1997 Act is concerned, it is by now too well-settled that the availability of alternative efficacious remedy is no bar to the exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction, in the light of various decisions, including but not limited to, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 SCR 595; Madhya Pradesh State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. Jahan Khan, (2007) 10 SCC 88; Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 285. Even on the anvil of Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771, Section 13 of the 1997 Act does not, and cannot, impede a Constitutional Court from proceeding further. We do not wish to multiply established authorities on the point but would add the very recent Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 to the list enumerated above.
37. We would indicate that the restraint, self-imposed, by the Courts as a general principle, laid out in some detail in some of the decisions supra, in election matters to the extent that once a notification is issued and the election process starts, the Constitutional Courts, under normal circumstances are loath to interfere, is not a contentious issue. But where issues crop up, indicating unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb a level-8
playing field between candidates and/or political parties with no justifiable or intelligible basis, the Constitutional Courts are required, nay they are duty-bound, to step in. The reason that the Courts have usually maintained a hands-off approach is with the sole salutary objective of ensuring that the elections, which are a manifestation of the will of the people, are taken to their logical conclusion, without delay or dilution thereof. In the context of providing appropriate succour to the aggrieved litigant at the appropriate time, the learned Single Judge acted rightly. In all fairness, we must note that the learned ASG, during the course of arguments, did not contest the power per se of the High Court to issue the directions it did, except that the same amounted to denying the Appellants their discretion. As stated hereinbefore, we are satisfied that in view of the 1968 Order, the Appellants' discretion was not unbridled, and rather, it was guided by the 1968 Order.
39. This case constrains the Court to take note of the broader aspect of the lurking danger of authorities concerned using their powers relating to elections arbitrarily and thereafter, being complacent, rather over-confident, that the Courts would not interfere. The misconceived notion being that in the ultimate eventuate, after elections are over, when such decisions/actions are challenged, by sheer passage of time, irreversible consequences would have occurred, and no substantive relief could be fashioned is just that - misconceived. However, conduct by authorities as exhibited herein may seriously compel the Court to have a comprehensive re-think, as to whether the self-imposed restrictions may need a more liberal interpretation, to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done, and done in time to nip in the bud any attempted misadventure. We refrain from further comment on the Appellants, noting the pendency of the contempt proceeding.
43. Placing reliance on Shri Sadiq Ali (supra), a 2-Judge Bench summed up as under, in Edapaddi K Palaniswami v. TTV Dhinakaran, (2019) 18 SCC 219:
"39. We say so because the efficacy of having a common symbol for a political group has been underscored in Sadiq Ali v. Election Commissionof India [Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India, (1972) 4 SCC 664]. In para 21 of the said judgment, this Court observed thus : (SCC pp. 674-75) "21. ... It is well known that overwhelming majority of the electorate are illiterate. It was realised that in view of the handicap of illiteracy, it might not be possible for the illiterate voters to cast their votes in favour of the candidate of their choice unless there was some pictorial representation on the ballot paper itself whereby such voters might identify the candidate of 9 their choice. Symbols were accordingly brought into use. Symbols or emblems are not a peculiar feature of the election law of India. ... The object is to ensure that the process of election is as genuine and fair as possible and that no elector should suffer from any handicap in casting his vote in favour of a candidate of his choice. Although the purpose which accounts for the origin of symbols was of a limited character, the symbol of each political party with the passage of time acquired a great value because the bulk of the electorate associated the political party at the time of elections with its symbol. ..."
(emphasis supplied) And again in paras 40 and 41 it is observed thus :
(Sadiq Ali case [Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India, (1972) 4 SCC 664], p. 682) "40. ... It would, therefore, follow that Commission has been clothed with plenary powers by the abovementioned Rules in the matter of allotment of symbols. ... If the Commission is not to be disabled from exercising effectively the plenary powers vested in it in the matter of allotment of symbols and for issuing directions in connection therewith, it is plainly essential that the Commission should have the power to settle a dispute in case claim for the allotment of the symbol of a political party is made by two rival claimants. ... Para 15 is intended to effectuate and subserve the main purposes and objects of the Symbols Order. The paragraph is designed to ensure that because of a dispute having arisen in a political party between two or more groups, the entire scheme of the Symbols Order relating to the allotment of a symbol reserved for the political party is not set at naught. ... The Commission is an authority created by the Constitution and according to Article 324, the superintendence, direction and control of the electoral rolls for and the conduct of elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the office of President and Vice-President shall be vested in the Commission. The fact that the power of resolving a dispute between two rival groups for allotment of symbol of a political party has been vested in such a high authority would raise a presumption, though rebuttable, and provide a guarantee, though not absolute but to a considerable extent, that the power would not be misused but would be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner.
41. ... Article 324 as mentioned above provides that superintendence, direction and control of elections shall be vested in Election Commission...."
(emphasis supplied)
40. This decision in Sadiq Ali [Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India, (1972) 4 SCC 664] has been followed in Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi [Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi, (1985) 4 10 SCC 628] and in para 10 thereof, the Court observed thus : (SCC pp. 635-36) "10. It is true that till recently the Constitution did not expressly refer to the existence of political parties.
But their existence is implicit in the nature of democratic form of Government which our country has adopted. The use of a symbol, be it a donkey or an elephant, does give rise to a unifying effect amongst the people with a common political and economic programme and ultimately helps in the establishment of a Westminster type of democracy which we have adopted with a Cabinet responsible to the elected representatives of the people who constitute the Lower House. The political parties have to be there if the present system of Government should succeed and the chasm dividing the political parties should be so profound that a change of administration would in fact be a revolution disguised under a constitutional procedure. It is no doubt a paradox that while the country as a whole yields to no other in its corporate sense of unity and continuity, the working parts of its political system are so organised on party basis -- in other words, "on systematised differences and unresolved conflicts". That is the essence of our system and it facilitates the setting up of a Government by the majority. Although till recently the Constitution had not expressly referred to the existence of political parties, by the amendments made to it by the Constitution (Fifty-
second Amendment) Act, 1985 there is now a clear recognition of the political parties by the Constitution. The Tenth Schedule to the Constitution which is added by the above Amending Act acknowledges the existence of political parties and sets out the circumstances when a member of Parliament or of the State Legislature would be deemed to have defected from his political party and would thereby be disqualified for being a member of the House concerned. Hence it is difficult to say that the reference to recognition, registration, etc. of political parties by the Symbols Order is unauthorised and against the political system adopted by our country."
(emphasis supplied)"
(emphasis supplied by us via bolding)
44. For reasons aforesaid, the entire election process, initiated pursuant to Notification dated 02.08.2023 issued by the Administration of Union Territory of Ladakh, Election Department, UT Secretariat, Ladakh, under S.O.53 published vide No. Secy/Election/2023/290-301 dated 05.08.2023 stands set aside. A fresh Notification shall be issued within seven days from today for elections to constitute the 5th Ladakh Autonomous Hill 11 Development Council, Kargil. R 1 is declared entitled to the exclusive allotment of the Plough symbol for candidates proposed to be put up by it."
11. Learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by three Judge Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties and Another Vs. Union of India and Another :
2013 (10) SCC 1. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Para Nos.30, 45, 47, 54 & 55 to contend the importance of Right to Vote that is conferred on a citizen and the importance of exercising the Right of Voting in a democracy in Para Nos.45 & 55 of the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in PUCL Case (referred supra). The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has emphasized that even though the Right to Vote is a statutory right, it is equally vital, since such Right is the essence of Democracy and without it i.e. the Right to Vote, the Democracy will fail to thrive. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of introducing an additional feature in the ballot paper „None of the above‟ (NOTA).
12. The Learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court through Sections 224 and 225 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short the „APPRA, 1994‟) and Rules, 18, 19, 21, 24 & 37 Of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2006 (for short the „Rules, 2006). He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 43 of the Rules, 2006.
Submissions of Unofficial Respondents
13. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Unofficial Respondents in both the Writ Petitions has taken this Court through Section 58A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the RPA, 1951). While referring to the said provision, he would submit that at this stage, the Election Commission cannot entertain the complaints made by the contesting candidates or any private parties inasmuch as the Election Commission would act only upon the „Report‟ submitted by the Returning 12 Officer but not otherwise. He would submit that the only remedy left open for a candidate who is aggrieved of the alleged irregularities said to have occurred during the polling process is to only approach the appropriate Tribunal by filing the Election Petition.
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the Unofficial Respondents has also taken this Court through the contents of the Article 243-O and Clause (a) & (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Boddula Krishnaiah and Another Vs. State Election Commissioner, A.P and Others : (1996) 3 SCC 416. He has placed reliance on Para Nos.7 to 9 of the said Judgment. He would contend that the „disputed questions of facts‟ cannot be decided in a Writ Petition. He would submit that the photographs and the video clippings furnished by the Writ Petitioners are only the „disputed questions of facts‟, which can only be decided upon complete trial and by Forensic Report in an appropriate Proceeding and such disputed questions of facts cannot be entertained in a Writ. Para Nos.7 to 9 of the said Judgment are usefully extracted hereunder:
"7. Article 243-O of the Constitution envisages bar on interference by courts in election matters. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, under sub-clause (b) "no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State". Thus there is a constitutional bar on interference with the election process except by an election petition, presented to an Election Tribunal as may be made by or under law by the competent legislature and in the manner provided thereunder. Power of the court granting stay of the election process is no longer res integra.
8. In N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency [(1952) 1 SCC 94 : 1952 SCR 218 : AIR 1952 SC 64] a Constitution Bench of this Court had held that having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognised to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time-schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. In 13 conformity with the principle, the scheme of the election law is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the „election‟; and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the „election‟ and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress.
9. The same principle was laid down in Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman [(1985) 4 SCC 689 : 1985 Supp (1) SCR 493] . In this case where the election process was set in motion the High Court granted ad interim injunction to the further proceedings of the election to the State Legislature. A Constitution Bench of this Court had held thus: (SCC pp. 708-09, para 30) "The High Court acted within its jurisdiction in entertaining the writ petition and in issuing a rule nisi upon it, since the petition questioned the vires of the laws of election. But, with respect, it was not justified in passing the interim orders dated February 12 and 19, 1982 and in confirming those orders by its judgment dated February 25, 1982.
Firstly, the High Court had no material before it to warrant the passing of those orders. The allegations in the writ petition are of a vague and general nature, on the basis of which no relief could be granted. Secondly, though the High Court did not lack the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and to issue appropriate directions therein, no High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution should pass any orders, interim or otherwise, which has the tendency or effect of postponing an election, which is reasonably imminent and in relation to which its writ jurisdiction is invoked. The High Courts must observe a self-imposed limitation on their power to act under Article 226, by refusing to pass orders or given directions which will inevitably result in an indefinite postponement of elections to legislative bodies, which are the very essence of the democratic foundation and functioning of our Constitution. That limitation ought to be observed irrespective of the fact whether the preparation and publication of electoral rolls are a part of the process of „election‟ within the meaning of Article 329(b) of the Constitution."
"Even assuming, that the preparation and publication of electoral rolls are not a part of the process of „election‟ within the meaning of Article 329(b), the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned interim orders, whereby it not only assumed control over the election process but, as a result of which, the election to the Legislative Assembly stood the risk of being postponed indefinitely."14
15. Learned Senior Counsel for the Unofficial Respondents has also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta in West Bengal State Election Commission Vs. Babli Begum and Others : 2023 SCC Online Cal 4829. The facts of this case are identical to the facts involved in the present Writ Petitions, which are reflected in Para No.3 of the said Judgment. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on Para 21 of the said Judgment, which is usefully extracted hereunder:
"21. Ratio of a judgment cannot be read like an Euclidean axiom or the words of a statute. It is to be read in the light of its factual matrix and not in a vaccum. In the present case the unsuccessful candidate i.e. the writ petitioner had raised disputes relating to illegalities in the election process after the result was published. Nature of his grievances squarely fall within the grounds of challenge envisaged under Section 93 of the Act of 2003 and is an election dispute under Section 79 of the said Act. Its adjudication would involve appreciation of oral, documentary and electronic evidence and cannot be equated with an ex-facie inaction in allotting symbol to a political party which had already been allotted the said symbol in the erstwhile State. On the contrary, efficacious adjudication of the disputes raised in the present case involve questions of fact and would require appreciation of evidence tested on the anvil of cross-examination."
Submissions by Official Respondents
16. Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General has submitted that the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court cited by Sri P. Veera Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.21661 of 2025 i.e., Union Territory of Ladakh and Others Vs. J & K National Conference and Another (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140) has no relevance inasmuch as the dispute therein is not relating to alleged irregularities or alleged illegalities during the election process but the dispute is related to grant of election symbol. He would also submit that the said dispute did not arise after the commencement of election process inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner therein namely Jammu and Kashmir National Conference had approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court with regard to the inaction on the part of the State Election Commission in not considering the request of the Writ Petitioner in 15 granting symbol „plough‟ as election symbol which already stood granted to the same party. He would further submit that the Writ Petitioner therein had approached the Court seeking Election Symbol even before the election notification. He has also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Division Bench of this Court in K. Ratna Prabha Vs. Election Commission of India : 2021 SCC OnLine AP 1012. He placed reliance on Para Nos.5 & 25 of the said Judgment, which are usefully extracted hereunder:
"5. Gist of the allegations in the writ petition is that a large number of people had been transported into the parliamentary constituency and were stationed in lodges and Kalyana Mandapams. They were utilized to indulge in large scale fake voting which is akin to booth capturing. It is further contended these proxy voters had been supplied with fake voter identity cards and when they were confronted by officers of the 1st respondent and election agents of the petitioner, they became afraid and hurriedly left the spot without casting their votes. The administrative machinery of the State acted in a partisan manner and inspite of FIRs lodged against members of the ruling party, instead of arresting the fake voters they allowed them to escape from the spot. There is ample evidence that the ruling party had forged identity proofs and transported thousands of people to cast fake votes in 322 polling booths. Representation was made to the 1st respondent - Election Commission to countermand the election under Section 58A(2)(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 [for short, „the Act of 1951‟] but the same was turned down without considering the relevant materials.
25. The other aspect of the matter is that the adjudication of an election dispute as the present one namely of alleged booth capturing and fake voting involves various disputed factual issues requiring reception and assessment of a plethora of oral and documentary evidence including electronic evidence. In fact, some materials have been annexed to the writ petition to press the cause of the writ petitioners to countermand the election. Admission, appreciation, evaluation and adjudication of such evidence would best be left to a full-fledged trial on evidence in the course of an election petition and ought not to be decided by exchange of affidavits in this writ petition. Efficacy of the procedure contemplated under the Act of 1951 and the Rules framed thereunder for trial in an election case persuades us to hold that such procedure is better suited to decide disputes of such nature rather than entertain them in a writ petition during the pendency of an election process. That apart, unlike local body elections, the High Court itself is the authority to adjudicate election disputes arising from parliamentary elections. Hence, in our view, relegating the writ petitioners to the constitutionally approved procedure of election petition before the High Court is wholly efficacious and does not in any way prejudice them in canvassing their grievances with regard to the election process including the decision of the 16 Election Commission not to go for a re-poll in the factual matrix of the case."
17. Sri S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing online on behalf of State Election Commission has not only drawn the attention of this Court to the text of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India but also the text of Clauses (a) & (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. He would also submit that provision corresponding to Section 58A of the RPA, 1951 is Section 231 of the APPRA, 1994. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Clause (a) & (b) of Sub-section 1 of Section 231 of APPRA, 1994 and also drawn the attention of Clause (a) & (b) of Sub-section 2 of Section 231 of APPRA, 1994. He would submit that insofar as the „Report‟ of the Returning Officer is concerned, in the present election, the Returning Officer has submitted a „Report‟ for conducting re-election in booth Nos.3 & 14 of Pulivendula ZPTC inasmuch as some malpractices were involved, and therefore, the State Election Commission has ordered for re- election insofar as booth Nos.3 & 14 are concerned. He would submit that the prayer sought in the present Writ Petitions cannot be entertained on the disputed questions of facts. He would submit that the Right to Vote is only a statutory right and it is not a fundamental right, and therefore, the present Writ Petitions cannot be entertained.
18. Learned Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 233 of the APPRA, 1994 and Rule 2 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals In Respect Of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parja Parishadas and Zilla Praja Parishads) Rules, 1995 (for short the „Rules, 1995).
Analysis
19. For the purpose of appreciation of above facts, the provisions of the Constitution, the relevant Statutes and the Rules, Regulations are extracted hereunder:
17243O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution :
(a)the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seals to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court;
(b)no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any Law made by the legislature of a State.
ii) Section 58-A of Representation of People Act, 1951 :
58A. Adjournment of poll or countermanding of election on the ground of booth capturing.--
(1)If at any election,--
(a)booth capturing has taken place at a polling station or at a place fixed for the poll (hereafter in this section referred to as a place) in such a manner that the result of the poll at that polling station or place cannot be ascertained; or
(b)booth capturing takes place in any place for counting of votes in such a manner that the result of the counting at that place cannot be ascertained, the returning officer shall forthwith report the matter to the Election Commission.
(2)The Election Commission shall, on the receipt of a report from the returning officer under sub-section (1) and after taking all material circumstances into account, either,--
(a)declare that the poll at that polling station or place be void, appoint a day, and fix the hours, for taking fresh poll at that polling station or place and notify the date so appointed and hours so fixed in such manner as it may deem fit;
or
(b)if satisfied that in view of the large number of polling stations or places involved in booth capturing the result of the election is likely to be affected, or that booth capturing had affected counting of votes in such a manner as to affect that result of the election, countermand the election in that constituency. Explanation.--In this section, "booth capturing" shall have the same meaning as in section 135A.
iii) Sections 231 & 233 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994:
231. Adjournment of poll or countermanding of election on the ground of booth capturing - (1) If at any election,
(a) booth capturing has taken place at a polling station or in such number of polling stations as is likely to affect the result of such election or 18 that the result of the poll at that polling station cannot be ascertained;
or
(b) booth capturing takes place in any place for counting of votes in such manner that the result of the counting at that place cannot be ascertained, the returning officer shall forthwith report the matter to the *[Andhra Pradesh Election Commissioner for Local Bodies].
(2) The *[Andhra Pradesh Election Commissioner for Local Bodies] shall on the receipt of a report from the returning officer under sub-section (1) and after taking all material circumstances into account, either,
(a) declare that the poll at that polling station be void, appoint a day, and fix the hours, for taking fresh poll at that polling station and notify the date so appointed and hours so fixed in such manner as he may deem fit, or
(b) if satisfied that in view of the large number of polling stations involved in booth capturing the result of the election is likely to be affected or that booth capturing had affected counting of votes in such manner as to effect the result of the election, countermand the election in that constituency.
Explanation: In this section "booth capturing" shall have the same meaning as in section 224.
233. Election petitions - No election held under this Act shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in accordance with such rules as may be made in this behalf.
iv) Rule 2 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals In Respect Of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parja Parishadas and Zilla Praja Parishads) Rules, 1995 "2. (1) Save as otherwise provided no election held under the Act, whether of a member, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, President and Vice-President of Mandal Praja Parishad and Member of Mandal Praja Parishad Territorial Constituencies and Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Zilla Praja Parishad and Member of Zilla Praja Parishad and Member of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency thereof, shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with these Rules to the Election Tribunal as defined in sub-rule(2) by any candidate or elector against the candidate who has been declared to have been duly elected (hereinafter called the returned candidate) or if there are two or more returned candidates against all or any such candidates.
(2) The Election Tribunal shall be, -
(i) except in cases following under clause (ii),
a) the District Munsiff, if there is more than one District Munsiff, the Principal District Munsiff, having Territorial Jurisdiction over the place in which the 19 office of Gram Panchayat is located, in respect of the election of members, Sarpanchas and Upa-Sarpanchas of Gram Panchayat.
b) the Subordinate Judge or if there is more than one Subordinate Judge at the Head Quarters, having Territorial Jurisdiction over the place in which the office of Mandal Praja Parishad or Zilla Praja Parishad as the case may be, is located, in respect of the election disputes and matters pertaining to the election of President, Vice-President and members of Mandal Praja Parishad Territorial Constituencies and Chairman, Vice- Chairman and Members of Zilla Praja Parishad Territorial Constituencies.
Explanation:- For purposes of these Rules, the expressions "Subordinate Judge" and "District Munsiff shall in relation to the Scheduled Areas mean the Agency Divisional Officer.
(ii) Where the Government so directs, whether in respect of Gram Panchayats generally or in respect of any class of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads such officer or officers of the Government as may be designated by the Government in this behalf by name or by virtue of Office;
Provided that an election petition may, on application, be transferred:
a) If presented to a Subordinate Judge or the District Munsiff, as the case may be, under clause (i) by the District Judge concerned to another Subordinate Judge or Munsiff Magistrate as the case may be within his jurisdiction;
b) If presented to an officer of the Government under clause (ii) by the Government to another officer of the Government.
Where an election petition is so transferred, the authority to which it is transferred shall be deemed to be the Election Tribunal.
(3) An election Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under these Rules shall be deemed to exercise such jurisdiction as a person designate and not in his capacity as a Judge or other Officer of the Government, as the case may be".
Disputed Questions of Facts:
20. The Writ Petitioners herein have placed on record various photographs and also the pen drives in support of their contentions that several people who are not the residents of territorial constituency have participated in the voting, which amounts to rigging. These are however, issues relating to facts which can be decided only by the competent Election Tribunal by adducing oral and documentary evidence on one hand and also on the strength of the Forensic Report on the other hand. It is clarified that 20 this Court is not venturing into making any comments on merits inasmuch as the comments may have a binding effect on the Election Tribunal and may also have adverse bearing on the merits of the case of either of the parties.
This apart, the Writ Court would not venture to undertake an exercise that is reserved purely for the enquiry by the Election Tribunal in terms of Section 233 of APPRA, 1994 read with Rule 2 of Rules, 1995.
Statutory Bar
21. Statue that is akin to Section 58A of the RPA, 1951 is incorporated under Section 231 of APPRA, 1994. Also, Section 233 of the APPRA, 1994 mandates, through a non-obstante clause, that no election held under the APPRA Act, 1994 Act shall be called in question except by an Election Petition presented to such authority and in accordance with such Rules as may be made in this behalf. As indicated earlier that under Rule 2 of the Rules, 1995, sub-clause (b) requires the aggrieved party to approach the Subordinate Judge for filing an Election Petition in respect of elections relating to Z.P.P. Therefore, the provisions referred to above would clearly indicate that the Writ Courts would be loath in entertaining the disputes that arise during the election process inasmuch as the said area is reserved for the Election Tribunal.
22. Provisions of the Constitution of India and the relevant provisions of the Statute that would fall for consideration in the present case have already been referred hereinabove. Article 243 and 243-A to 243-O would deal with various aspects of Rural India namely the Gram Sabhas and local panchayats. Clause (b) of Article 243-O stipulates that "no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an „election petition‟ presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State". The elections to Panchayats of Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Praja Parishads in the State of Andhra Pradesh are governed by the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
2123. In this view of the matter, the Judgments relied on by the Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel in the „plough‟ symbol case (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140) and PUCL Case [(2013) 10 SCC 1], referred supra, would have no relevance to the facts involved in the present Writ Petitions.
24. Similarly, the reliance placed by Sri S. Sri Ram, learned Senior Counsel on Paras 14 to 17, 19 to 22 and 36 to 39 in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others : (1978) 1 SCC 405 during his rejoinder would also not support the case of the Writ Petitioners herein. He has further submitted that there is inaction on the part of State Election Commission in taking appropriate action on the alleged irregularities projected by the Writ Petitioners. He would further submit that the conduct of the State Election Commission tantamounts to abdication of its statutory functions.
25. On the contrary, the reliance placed by Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Unofficial Respondents, which are referred to above would squarely apply to the facts of the present cases, inasmuch as the Writ Court would not entertain Writ Petitions to consider the disputed questions of facts. This apart, this Court is also in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel with regard to the the constitutional and statutory mandate which would clearly indicate that the nature of disputes raised by the Writ Petitioners herein can only be adjudicated by the Election Tribunal, when the aggrieved party files an Election Petition.
26. This Court is in agreement with the submissions of Sri S. Vivek Chandrasekhar representing the State Election Commission (SEC) that it had ordered for a re-poll in respect of booth nos.3 and 14 in Pulivendula ZPTC basing on the „Report‟ submitted by the Election Officer and insofar as the disputes raised by the Writ Petitioners are concerned, they are required to approach the designated Election Tribunal but not a Writ Court inasmuch as there is a Constitutional and Statutory bar for entertaining a Writ Petition.
2227. In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in these Writ Petitions. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. Writ Petitioners are, however, granted liberty to approach the Election Tribunal in respect of the issues involved in the present Writ Petitions, if so advised. No Order as to Costs.
28. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 14.08.2025 Note: LR Copy to be marked.
JKS 23 233 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NOs: 21648 & 21661 of 2025 14.08.2025 Note: LR Copy to be marked.
JKS