Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Monday declined to grant interim relief in a petition challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to print enumeration forms for the special intensive revision of electoral roll exclusively in Telugu across Telangana, except in Hyderabad where English forms were available. The court directed the ECI to consider the feasibility of providing forms in Urdu in areas where the Urdu-speaking population exceeded 20 per cent.
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the High Court also directed the ECI to place on record details of the languages in which SIR forms were distributed in West Bengal, Rajasthan and Bihar when the process was held in those states. Further, Justice Reddy directed the ECI to furnish any order from the Supreme Court or any other High Court on the issue. The court gave the poll panel one week to file its counter-affidavit addressing the petitioner's objections.
The judge was dealing with writ petition filed by M.A. Mujeeb of Karimnagar, who stated that the enumeration form was a crucial electoral document that enabled voters to verify, correct, and update personal information in the electoral roll. He contended that making the forms available only in Telugu would adversely affect a significant section of electors, including migrant workers, professionals, students, businesspersons, and retired individuals residing in Telangana who may not be proficient in the language.
When ECI counsel informed the court that making available of the forms in all languages would be a big task, the court observed that the commission was undertaking an exercise of enormous democratic significance and asked whether providing forms in additional languages would truly be an insurmountable task.
Justice Reddy remarked that several consumer products, including SIM card packages, mobile phone user manuals and product catalogues, routinely carried instructions in three or four languages, making them accessible to a diverse population. The judge asked why a similar approach could not be adopted for electoral forms, especially in areas with substantial populations of those proficient in different languages.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel Raghunath argued that limiting the forms to Telugu effectively excluded linguistic minorities from the electoral process. He submitted that while it was unclear which languages the booth level officers (BLOs), who administer the forms, were proficient in, the decision to print forms only in Telugu in the rest of Telangana, and in English for Hyderabad, was intended to disadvantage minority communities.
"The right to seek and fill voter registration forms in a language understood by the applicant is a constitutional right," senior counsel argued, adding that a significant section of Hyderabad's population was proficient in Urdu and required forms in that language.
Avinash Desai, designated senior counsel representing the Election Commission, submitted that BLOs were supplied with reference or "dummy" forms in English and Urdu in addition to the Telugu forms. Where applicants are unable to understand Telugu, the contents were explained to them using these reference forms before the information was entered into the official Telugu form.
Desai informed the court that the arrangement had been unanimously accepted by representatives of all recognised political parties during a meeting convened by the Election Commission on June 17.
He argued that Telugu was the primary language of Telangana and that English forms had additionally been made available in Hyderabad considering its metropolitan area. Printing forms in every language spoken by residents of the state, he contended, would be impractical and would involve enormous expenditure of public funds.
He also submitted that the printing process had already been completed and the forms were being distributed by BLOs. Including multiple languages in a single form, he said, could create confusion among voters. He added that the forms are also available online.
After hearing both sides, Justice Vijaysen Reddy directed the ECI and other respondents to file their counters and posted the matter for further hearing next week.
Apply Uniform Standards on Arrests: Telangana High Court Questions Police Failure to Nab Accused
The Telangana High Court on Monday questioned the selective exercise of police powers, observing that "friendly policing" appeared to be extended to some while others were subjected to arrest even in less serious cases.
Justice T. Madhavi Devi questioned the Narsingi police for not arresting the accused in an alleged attempt-to-murder case registered in November 2025, despite claiming to have collected incriminating material and evidence against them during the investigation.
The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by a 70-year-old woman of Puppalguda in Rangareddy district, alleging that the Narsingi police failed to conduct a fair investigation in an attempt to murder her by her family members. She sought transfer of the investigation to an independent senior officer outside the police station, contending that the investigation violated the provisions of the BNSS.
Police informed the court that they had filed a chargesheet and material was seized. They submitted that one of the accused was not arrested due to her pregnancy.
Justice Madhavi Devi questioned the justification, observing that pregnancy could at best explain the non-arrest of one accused, but not the others. The court observed that if the state's argument was that custodial interrogation was unnecessary once material objects had been seized, the same standard should be uniformly applied in all criminal cases.
The court directed the state government to file a detailed counter affidavit by the next date of hearing, specifically explaining why the accused were not arrested and "the special category to which the respondents/ accused persons belong."
