Top

Blow to BRS as HC Dismisses its Plea on Separate MLC Elections

HYDERABAD: In a setback to the BRS, the Telangana High Court on Thursday dismissed its petition challenging the decision of the Election Commission of India (ECI) to hold separate by-elections to the two MLC seats under the Assembly constituency quota, by setting up two ballot boxes, which will allow MLAs to vote separately for each MLC seat.

The court was not inclined to interfere in the issue as the notification had been issued to hold the elections on January 29. The court noted that as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution, no election to either House of Parliament or the legislature shall be called in question except by filing an election petition.

The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar, was dealing with a petition filed by Patolla Karthik Reddy, son of Sabitha Indra Reddy, BRS spokesperson. He challenged the validity of a note (dated 04.01.2024), issued by ECI for conducting byelections to the two seats in the Legislative Council. The seats fell vacant following the resignation of Kadiam Srihari and P. Kaushik Reddy, after their wins in the recent Assembly elections.

Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel, appearing for Karthik Reddy submitted to the court that as per Article 171(4), the vacancies were required to be filled up by a single transferable vote.

Avinash Desai, senior counsel for the ECI, submitted that Article 171 envisages filling up the vacancies, which arise at the end of the term of office of a member, whereas Section 151 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, deals with filling up of the causal vacancies. ECI has initiated the action in consonance with Section 151 of the RP Act, Avinash Desai said and brought to the notice of the court that the election notification has already been issued.

The High Court concluded that Section 151 of the RP Act envisages issuance of a separate notification for filling up the vacancies and the ECI note was in consonance with Section 151 of the RP Act and dismissed the arguments of the petitioner.

( Source : Deccan Chronicle. )
Next Story