The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. Telangana State Election Commission (T-SEC), Rep by its. Authorised Persoh 1st Floor, DTCP Building, Opp PTI Building, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500004 RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Direction or Order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus 1. To declare the Section 21 (3) of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act 2018 to be in violation of the mandate of Part-lll, Part Xl constitution of lndia and consequently strike down the Section 21 (3) of relangana Panchayat Raj Act 2018 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional in protection of Fundamental Rights of the Article 14, 19 (1 ) (g), 21 of constitution of lndia and other Statutory Rights as applicable lA NO: 1 OF 202! Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased To direct the respondent no.2 (Telangana State Election Conrmission) to allow the writ petitioners to contest in the local body elections conducted by it, under Part lX (The Panchayats) of Constitution of lndia and the provisions of the Telangana State Panchayat Raj Act 2018, subject to the outcome of'the writ petition Counsel fOr the Petitioners: SRI VIJAY GOPAL Counselfor the Respondent No.1: MS. SHAZIA PARVEEN, GP FOR PANCHAYAT R,AJ counsel for the Respondent No.2: sRl G. VIDYA SAGAR, sENloR couNSEL REPRESENTING SRI P. SUDHEER RAO, SC FOR TELANGANA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN IIIRIT PETITION No.32746 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Mr. VUay Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Shazia Parveen, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Cournsel representing Mr. P.Sudheer Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Election Commission appearing for respondent No.2.

2. Tlle uires of Section 21(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act of 2OlB']l, which restricts the eligibility of a person to contest elections to the panchayat on grounds of having more than two children, has once again been challenged in the present writ petition though this issue had drawn the attention of this Court in W.P.Nos.22842 and 22991 of 2024 uide order dated O5.O9.2024 and further in W.P(PIL)(SR).No.6578 of 2o2s uide order dated

03.03.2025 following the ratio rendered by the Apex court in 2 Javed v. fitate of l{aryanal on a similar legislation by the State of Haryana being Haryana Panchayat Raj A,ct, 1994.

3. on this instance, learned counsel for the petitioners has made an ingenious submission to distinguish'ttrr: ratio rendered in the case of Javed (supra) and the decision rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in the afore.said two writ petitions by trying to bring the ambit of the impr-rqned provision of the Act r:f 2or8 under the cover of Article 31c of the constitution of India. According to the petitioners;, the Harl,ana Panchayat Raj Act, L994 had received the arssent of the President whereas the Telangana panchayat Raj Act, 2018 lvas not sent for such assent and in fact notified on the basis of assent of the Hon'ble Governor of the State itsell', which is in teeth of the proviso to Article 31C of the Constitution of India.

4. Article 31c of the constitution of India reads as under: "31C. Saving of laws giving effect to certain directive principles.- Notwithstanding anything contained in arrticle 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV shall be ceemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by article 14 or rrrticle 19 r (2003) 8 scc 369 J and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy: Provided that where such law is made by the Legislature of a State, the provisions of this article sha-ll not apply thereto unless such law, having been resen'ecl for the consideration of the President, has received his assent."

5. We have conferred anxious consideration to this issue, but we fail to decipher as to hou, the impugned provision under the Act of 2OlB would amount to infraction of the right conferred by Articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution of India. We are strengthened by the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Javed (supra) at page No.59, wherein it has been categorically held that there is no fundamenta-l right to any person to stand as a candidate for election to the Municipality. The impugned disqualification does not violate that fundamental right to practice any profession or carry any occupation, trade or business. The Apex Court further observed that disqualification on the right to contest an election by having more than two living children does not contravene any fundamental right nor it crosses the limits of reasonability. Rather,+ it is a disqualification conceptually devised in national interest. with the disqualification made by the Apex court, the 4 novel piea raised on behalf of the petitioners to once again question the ulres of Section2l (3) of the Act of 2o1B has to iail also in vierr,, of the pronouncements of the Co-clrdinate Bench of t}-ris Court :n a similar challenge.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, being der,,oid of merit, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sha[ stand closed. /ffRUE COPY/ SD/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ty. SECTION OFFICER CommissionlOPUCl

1. One CC to firi Viiay Gopal, Advocate IOPUC] 2. One CC to Sri P. Sudhe'er Rao, SC for Telangana State fjlection 3' i*o CC to The GP tor Panpchayat Raj' High court for th'a State of 4. Two CD CoPies Telangana, at HYderabad[OUT] To, TJ LSfk HIGH COURT DATED:30/1 012025 ORDER WP.No.32746 of 2025 :::::::::\.-.. !.j 1 7 [i:t {r \l r-1,; i\ * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,dta * 'f*'