Order Today on Inclusion of Voter After Poll Process Begins

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court will pronounce orders on Tuesday on the question whether the State Election Commission (SEC) can be directed to include names in the voters list after issuance of the election notification. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar was hearing a writ appeal preferred by the Telangana SEC. The appellant moved a lunch motion on Monday against the order of the single judge which directed that the name of writ petitioner Chinthamalla Kalpana be treated as included in the electoral roll of Indugula gram panchayat and that her case be considered for participation in the elections. The writ petitioner had earlier moved the High Court, stating that she had applied in Form–8 on October 6 for the transfer of her vote from Satyam Pahad gram panchayat (Nagarjunasagar Assembly constituency) to Indugula (Nalgonda assembly constituency) and subsequently downloaded an updated EPIC on November 26. In the writ appeal, the SEC contended that the impugned order was contrary to Article 243-O of the Constitution and Sections 11 and 12 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. The commission pointed out that July 1 was notified as the qualifying date and that ward-wise gram panchayat electoral rolls were finalised and republished on November 23, to remain in force until fresh rolls were prepared. It was further contended that inclusion of a name in the Assembly electoral roll by the Election Commission of India did not, by itself, form part of the gram panchayat roll unless notified under the Panchayat Raj Act and Rules. The commission also referred to the election schedule notified on November 25, under which the first phase of polling was fixed for December 11, and the list of contesting candidates is to be published on December 3. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the appellant argued that once the election process is set in motion, the High Court ought to adopt a hands-off approach and refrain from issuing directions that effectively alter the electoral roll or control the conduct of the poll. The panel posted the matter to Tuesday for orders.

Cancellation of scan centre set aside

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court set aside a cancellation of registration of Apple Scan Centre, Suryapet, holding that the order of district medical & health officer was vitiated by a “complete absence of cogent reasoning” and amounted to a breach of the principles of natural justice. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Dr Soma Kiran Kumar, a radiologist, assailing the proceedings through which the Suryapet authorities revoked the registration of the centre under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, (PC & PNDT Act), a statute that regulates and monitors diagnostic techniques and prohibits sex selection. The petitioner contended that all requisite qualifications, consultant registrations, and statutory compliances mandated under the Act were duly fulfilled and that the cancellation was precipitated by a misleading media report inaccurately suggesting that the centre had been shut down. It was the case of the petitioner that a detailed explanation and supporting documentation were furnished, yet the authority failed to undertake a meaningful evaluation. The respondents contended that due procedure had been scrupulously followed, that notices and adequate opportunity of hearing were afforded, and that the petitioner had been practising radio-diagnosis without proper statutory registration, thereby justifying the impugned action. Justice Bheemapaka observed that the cancellation order was bereft of analytical reasoning and failed to consider the explanations of the petitioner or documentary evidence. The judge relied on various ruling of Supreme Court and said that every quasi-judicial authority is under a legal obligation to render a speaking, reasoned order reflecting application of mind. Consequently, the judge quashed the impugned cancellation and remanded the matter to the district medical and health officer for de novo (from the beginning) consideration, directing that a fresh, reasoned order be passed in accordance with law.

Proof of adultery needed in divorce case: HC

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ruled that allegations of adultery must be proved and not just alleged in a divorce petition. The panel comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice V. Ramakrishna Reddy allowed two appeals filed by the appellant-wife challenging the decree of divorce granted by the Nalgonda Family Court. The panel observed that the Family Court rendered its decision in patent contravention of settled matrimonial jurisprudence, having accepted allegations of cruelty and desertion sans the substratum of legally admissible evidence. It was contended that the allegations of an adulterous liaison with a third party were characterised as “grave and stigmatic averments necessitating strict proof”, yet any corroborative testimony, independent witnesses, or documentary material to substantiate the charge were adduced. The panel observed that the institution of criminal proceedings under the IPC or an application seeking maintenance could not be metamorphosed into acts constituting matrimonial cruelty, and said that such recourse was often symptomatic of marital distress and could not be wielded as a ground for dissolution. The panel categorically held that the allegations of illicit intimacy were unproved, it nonetheless invoked prolonged separation to dissolve the marriage. The panel reiterated that irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act, and therefore could not be judicially imported by a court of first instance.

Docs challenge locals rule for PG med courses

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea a writ plea challenging the constitutional and legal validity of Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Postgraduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2021 and government order issued on October 28, 2024 by the health, medical and family welfare (C1) department. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with the batch of writ petitions filed by various doctors inter alia challenging Rule VIII of said admission rules, which provided for reservation for candidate who has studied in the educational institutions in Telangana for a period of not less than four consecutive years. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned amendment provided for residence-based reservation in postgraduate medical admissions, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. He contended that residence-based reservations, other than permissible institutional preference, in professional postgraduate courses were impermissible and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was pointed out that the rules provided for allocation of a specified percentage of PG medical seats to candidates who satisfied the prescribed residence or local area criteria within the state, apart from the institutional preference, for admissions conducted pursuant to NEET (PG). The panel after hearing arguments observed the that the matter required detailed examination and determination. It declined to grant any interim stay at this stage and directed the university to file its counter affidavit.