Telangana HC Rejects State Poll Panel Case on Voter Transfer

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court junked a writ appeal filed by the Telangana State Election Commission (SEC) which had challenged an order directing inclusion of a voter’s name in the electoral roll of Indugula gram panchayat and permitting her to contest the ensuing elections. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar was dealing with the writ appeal filed by the SEC.

The commission had moved a lunch motion on Monday against the order of the single judge which directed that the name of the writ petitioner, Chinthamalla Kalpana, be treated as included in the electoral roll of Indugula panchayat and that her case be considered for participation in the election. The writ petitioner earlier moved the High Court, stating that she applied in Form-8 on October 6, for transfer of her vote from Satyam Pahad gram panchayat (Nagarjunasagar Assembly constituency) to Indugula (Nalgonda Assembly constituency) and 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 are prepared. It was contended that inclusion of a name in the Assembly electoral roll by the Election Commission of India does not, by itself, form part of the Gram Panchayat roll unless notified under the Panchayat Raj Act and Rules. The commission would also refer to the election schedule notified on November 25, under which the first phase of polling is 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 was 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 observed that “no illegality or perversity” could be found in the order passed by the single judge that warranted interference with the interim orders, and no irreparable prejudice would be caused to the appellants if the election is permitted to proceed. The panel noted that “in the event of the writ petitioner either winning or losing the election, appropriate remedies are available under law.”

The panel held the participation of the writ petitioners in the ensuing election does not amount to interference with the election process. Expressing its concern, the panel speaking through Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya emphasised that “the democratic process of elections must be upheld.” She observed that “the integrity of the democratic process rests upon the conduct of free, fair, transparent and timely elections.” The panel underscored that “it is the solemn duty of all institutions and stakeholders to safeguard the electoral process by ensuring that voters are able to exercise their franchise freely, without fear, coercion or undue influence, and that all participants in the electoral contest are able to campaign and compete on an equal and unhindered footing.”

Plea for road on pipeline land spiked

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea filed by a landowner seeking permission to lay a public road over a stretch of land forming part of a right of user (ROU) corridor acquired for a petroleum pipeline in 2002. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Ramesh Mandava. The petitioner argued that the pipeline occupied only four metres of the 18-metre corridor, leaving the remaining 14 metres available for use as a public pathway. He claimed that the land included the historic Bandla Baata and portions of layout roads, contending that Section 9 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, did not prohibit development of roads. The pipeline authorities maintained that laying a road would obstruct inspection, patrolling and emergency excavation, posing significant safety risks. The judge accepted this position and observed that technical assessments relating to pipeline safety fall squarely within the domain of the authorised agency and should not be interfered with unless shown to be perverse. The judge noted that the ROU acquisition completed in 2002 after payment of compensation cannot be questioned after nearly two decades. The judge held that once an ROU is acquired under the Act, landowners’ rights are subject to statutory restrictions, and local municipal provisions or customary pathways cannot override rights vested in the authorised pipeline operator under a Central law.

Pocso case victim’s age to be ascertained

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court partly allowed two criminal revision petitions filed by seven accused in a Pocso Act case, permitting them to summon school authorities to verify the alleged discrepancy in the victim’s date of birth. The judge was dealing with a criminal revision cases filed by Banoth Anil and six others. The accused argued that while the prosecution relied on the Secondary School Certificate to show the victim was a minor, certificates from schools previously attended by her reflected a different date of birth. They contended that this discrepancy created a doubt about her age, which is central to the applicability of the Pocso Act. The trial court rejected their request by invoking Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which gives primacy to the SSC certificate. Justice Tukaramji held that when conflicting documents exist, the defence must be given an opportunity to test their authenticity, as age determination is a “foundational fact” in a prosecution under the Pocso Act. The judge further noted that PW-2 (the victim) admitted to studying in the schools concerned, and that the accused produced prima facie material showing a possible variation in her date of birth. Observing that the right to present defence evidence is part of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the judge set aside the trial court’s order and directed that the school authorities be summoned and examined without delay. The judge declined the accused’s request to send the admission register extract to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for handwriting analysis, holding that such a step was not warranted at this stage.

Bail for farmer in ganja plants case

The Telangana High Court granted bail to an agriculturist accused of cultivating ganja in Jangaon district. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Saketh Kamalesh seeking enlargement on bail in a case registered under the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, the police acting on credible information inspected agricultural land at Tharigoppula and allegedly found ganja cultivation; 6.540 kilograms of ganja plants were allegedly seized and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on October 29. Appearing Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not present at the spot during inspection and was falsely implicated on the basis of land ownership records. Counsel contended that the petitioner was an agriculturist with no criminal antecedents and that continued incarceration was unwarranted. Taking note that an intermediate quantity of ganja was seized and that the petitioner was in custody since October 29, the judge granted conditional bail to the petitioner.