The High Court · 2025

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent nos.1 to 4 on representation, dt.03/1 1/2025 as injustice, arbitrary, violation of principles of Natural justice and undemocratic to the Election process and unfair and violalion of the representation of people's Act, 1956, and misuse of powers, unconstitutional and violation of article 14 of constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation dt.03/ 1112025 to put ailotted symbol as it is in ffhjEw,|s and Ballot papers in the bye elections to Telangana state Legislative AsqF#Ibly from 61-Jubiree Hiils Assembry. lA NO: 1 OF 202s ; . ,,.1,t Petition undersebtion 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in ,,lpribrt of the petition, the High court may, be pleased to stay bye-election to the Telangana state legislative Assembly from 61-Jubilee Hills Assembly constituency oending disposal of the above writ petition. i counsel for the petitioner: sRr M.A. MUJEEB, APPEARTNG oN BEHALF oF RI GOVARDHAN.B counsel for the Respondents: sRr KopAL SHARRAF, S.C. FOR ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDTA The Court made the fottowing: ORDER i&*-: . .I ,/ THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.34O83 of 2o25 The present Writ Petition is filed by a candidate set up by the Telangana Republican Party (TRP), who is contesting by-election to the 61-Jubliee Hills Assembly Constituency, seeking a declaration that the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4 i.e., the Election Commission of India, the Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana State, the Commissioner, GHMC and the Returning Officer, 61-Jubliee Hills, Assembly Constituency & RDO, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad on the representation of the petitioner dated 03.1 L.2025, as illegal and arbitrary

2. Heard Sri M.A.Mujeeb, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Govardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Kopal Sharraf, learnbd Standing Counsel for Election Commission of India for the respondents and perused the record

3. The core grievance of the petitioner is that he was allotted the free symbol i.e., "SI.No.101 - Mike". And that on 03.11.2025 during a mock poll, the petitioner noticed that the "Mike symbol" displayed on the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and the Ballot Papers was not "as it is" specified by the Election \ \ \L \ I a commission .f lndia. The petitioner alleges thal. the displayed symbol had a poor quality and was of a different thickness and was not showing the line at the bottom of the mihe, which could confuse the voters and undermine his candidature.

4. The petrtioner has made a formal representation dated 03.11.2025 (Ex.P1) to respondent No.4 i.e., the Returning officer, requesting rectification of the symbol displayed. -lhe respondent No.4 by endr>rsement dated 06.1 t.2o2s (Ex.p2) rejected the request made b.r' rhe petitioner, stating that the application of the petitioner cotrld not be considered at this jtrncture. The respondent N..4 further noted that the request had been filed during the mock polls, after the completion of the commissioning of the EVMs eLnd VVPATs. In the endorsement, re:spondent No.4 also asserted that ample opportunity had been provided earlier to the candidates for verification.

5. The petit-ioner made another representation to respondent No.2 through a letter dated oz.rr.2o2s (Ex.p3) and has also approached this court on the very same day by wa-r, of the present Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.l to 4 on the representation dated 03.1 1 .2o2s uide Ex.P 1, as illegal and arbitrary and further seeking a direction ..1.. to the Election authorities to rectify his symbol disptayed on the EVMs, Ballot papers and WPATs. Contentions on behalf of the oetitioner:

6. . Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the inaction and the refusal on the part of respondent No.4 to correct the display of the symbol is illegal, arbitrar5r and unjust besides being misuse of the power under the Representation of the people Act, 1951.

7. Learned counsel further contended that the incorrectly rendered/displayed symbols with poor quality will inevitably confuse the electorate, thereby, preventing voters from identifying their chosen candidate, this, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, constitutes a substantial defect in the election process that makes democracy a mockery. B. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has no other efficacious alternative remedy to secure the relief of correction of his election symbol before the election, which compelled him to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Learned counsel further contended that the objection with regard to the poor quality of his election symbol as displayed in \ \ i i I \ \ ;) ir4ii \ the EVMs, Etallot Papers and WPATs was n,rticed only on

03.11.2025 during the mock poll and immediately, upon the said defect/deficiency being noticed, the petitioner has made a representatiorr to respondent No.4 on the very sarne day Contending thus, learned counsel for the petitioner sought respondent officials to display the symbol allotted r:o the petitioner "as it is" in thr: EVMs, Ballot Papers and WPATs irL the by-election to the Telangerna State Legislative Assembly from 51-Jubliee Hills Assembly con:stituency Contentions on behalf of the respondents:

10. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for Election Commission of India appearing for the respondents contended that once the election notification has been issuecl and the EVMs have been commissioned, the election process cannot be interfered with and the only remedy available to the writ pet-itioner is to file an Election Petition 1 1. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents further contended thert the specific issue regarding the displayed symbol is merely an irregularity relating to the preparation of the election materials, which forms an integral part of the election process. Therefore, the decision of respondent No.4 i.e., Rr:turning Officer uide Ex.P2 is final and cannot be interfered with on the ground of an alleged poor quality of display of the election symbol on the EVMs and Ballot Papers

12. Learned Standing Counsel furthermore contended that the Iegal remedy for any irregularity or illegality in the election process, including improper display of symbol is by way of an Election Petition under Representation of the People Act, 1951.

13. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents finally contended that the objection regarding the quality of display of the symbol was raised by the petitioner belatedly after the process of commissioning of EVMs and WPATs was completed despite the petitioner having been given ample opportunity for verification of the same earlier. It was further contended that the judicial intervention at this stage would inevitably cause detrimental delay to the scheduled election, for which all necessary preparation was already been completed. Analvsis and reasoning:

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Election Commission of lndia, u,e find that the present Writ Petition is barred under the express terms of Article 329 of the Constitution of India which \ \ \ I -t '-! .J ::6 categorically' stipulates that "no election to t:ither House of Parliament or to the House or either House of tht: Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an Election petition presented to such authority and in such marrner as may be prbvided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature". The term election under this Arti,:le encompasses the entire electoral process starting from the issuance of the election notification to the final declaration of the result.

15. The Hon'ble supreme court of India in the land mark case of N.P,Ponnusuramg a. Returning ofJicer, Namakkal constituencg and otherst vvhich r,r,as reaffirmed in several other cases established a clear unequivocal principk: that the High Court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interven€: or interfere with the ongoing election process. Any challenge pertaining to the alleged illegality or irregularity occurring during the election must be reserved for an Election Petition to be filed after the completion of the election.

16. The petitioner's grievance regarding the quality of the display of the allotterl symbol - 'Mike'being very thin and of poor quatity and not being "as it is" fails squarely within the meaning of electoral matter. It is an irregularity occtrrring during the 1 t952 1 scc 94 immediate and the highly time sensitive stage of preparing EVMs and Ballot Papers, which is inseparable from the election process ' and forms an integral and intrinsic part thereof. 17 . The Representation of the People Act 1951 and particularly, Section BO thereof provides the manner of calling an election into question. The petitioner is not left without a remedy. If the alleged defect in the display of the symbol is found to be true and substantive, the petitioner is entitled to raise this issue as a ground in the Election Petition to be filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 contending that the defect/poor qualitl' of the s-vmbol as materially affected the result of election.

18. The relevant provision of the Representation of people Act, 1951 reads as under: Section 80. Election Petitions- ^l[o electton shall be called in question except by en electton petition presented in accordance with the prouisions of this Part. section 7oo. Grounds for d.eclaring election to be void- [(1) subject to the prouisions oJ'sub-section (2) if [the High court] ts of opinion- (a) **** (b) *""" (c) **** (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerrts a returned. candidate, has been materictllll affected-- **rlrl (i) (iL) \ \ \ \ 8 \ -*-*=1 (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or reje<:tton of any uote or the reception of any uote which is uoid, or (iu) by anA non-compliance with the pro,.tisions of the constitution or of this Act or of ang ntres or <-trc)zrs mad.e und"er this Act, - [the High Court] shall declare the election of tLrc returnecl candid.ate to be uoid.l

19. The record clearly sholr,s that the petitioner filed his representation on 03.11.2025 after the commjssioning of the EVMs and VVPATs was completed. The present writ petition is filed on 07.11.2025 within ongoing electoral schedule for by- elections, which were scheduled on 11.11.2025 Grant of relief sought by the petitioner namely: directing the Elcction Officials to open the cornmissioned EVMs and wpATs and to re-commission them with a newly rendered symbol 'uvould necessitate an inevitable disruption, delay and the suspension of the entire election schedule. It is settled lar,v that the High Court under Atticle 226 of Constitution of tndia has to exercise restraint in passing an order that impedes or stalls the election process.

20. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the.writ petition is misconceived, lacking in merit and is constitutionally barred. The alleged grievance of the petitioner hor,vever genuine, it may be, pertains to a stage after the commencement of the election process and must be raised through the appropriate ancl r:xclusive remedy / ..o.. of an Election Petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951

21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ,.P. PONNA KRISHNA STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI GOVARDHAN 8., Advocate I 2. One CC to SRI KOPAL SHARRAF, S.C. for Election Commission of lndia IoPUCI

3. Two CD Copies To MP LS I / HIGH COURT DATED:1111112025 -./:.' y'.|*' ,.'-'\ !:; !. ' ;i-r \\.":, 'r.jl' t\ 0 5 i.ii ?tu5 t .i l,l ORDER WP.No.34083 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ttlo(