Voter's Choice Can't Be Ignored Merely Because Ballot Carried Tick Mark, Instead Of Prescribed Swastik Symbol: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that a ballot paper bearing a tick mark (✓) instead of the prescribed "Swastik" mark could not have been rejected in the absence of any rule or bye-law mandating exclusive use of the Swastik symbol. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 102]

Holding that election authorities cannot elevate "procedural formality over substantive democratic choice", the Court declared the petitioner duly elected as General Secretary of the Bodhan Bar Association after counting the disputed ballot in his favour. The Court also held that the Election Officer had no jurisdiction to direct that the office be shared between the two candidates for six months each, observing that such an arrangement was "alien to democratic principles governing representative institutions."

Allowing the writ petition, Justice N. Tukaramji observed:

"Election jurisprudence recognizes that while certainty and uniformity in the voting process are desirable, equal importance must be attached to preservation of the franchise and ascertainment of the intention of the voter. Unless the governing rules expressly declare a ballot invalid for non-compliance with a prescribed mode of marking, a ballot which clearly and unmistakably reflects the voter's intention ought not to be rejected on purely technical grounds... Rejection of such a ballot solely on the ground that the voter employed a tick mark instead of a Swastik mark amounts to elevating procedural formality over substantive democratic choice and results in disenfranchisement of a member of the Association without authority of law."

The Court further held that the Election Officer's decision to divide the tenure of the office of General Secretary between the petitioner and the rival candidate was "without jurisdiction", observing that "the power to conduct elections cannot, by necessary implication, be extended to include the power to divide an elected tenure between rival candidates."

The petitioner advocate and member of the Bodhan Bar Association, had contested the election for the post of General Secretary for the year 2026-27 against respondent No.3. Out of 120 members, 108 cast their votes. During counting, the Election Officer rejected one ballot cast in favour of the petitioner on the ground that it contained a tick mark (✓) instead of the prescribed Swastik mark. As a result, both candidates were shown to have secured 53 votes each, following which the Election Officer declared that they would hold the office of General Secretary for six months each.

Challenging the decision, the petitioner contended that neither the bye-laws nor any election instructions prescribed that only a Swastik mark could be used or that a tick mark would invalidate the ballot. He argued that the intention of the voter was unequivocal and that counting the disputed ballot would result in his securing 54 votes, thereby entitling him to be declared elected. He also contended that the Election Officer had no authority under the bye-laws to devise a rotational arrangement for the office.

The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that instructions had been issued before polling directing members to cast their votes only by affixing the prescribed Swastik mark, failing which the ballot would be treated as invalid. They further contended that after both candidates secured 53 valid votes, they had orally agreed to share the office of General Secretary for six months each and that the petitioner, having initially accepted the arrangement, was estopped from challenging it. The respondents also objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the Model Bye-laws and that the Bar Association was a private body not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Rejecting the preliminary objection, the Court held that the availability of an alternative remedy was not an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 where questions of jurisdictional error, arbitrariness and violation of principles governing a fair electoral process were raised.

On merits, the Court found that neither the bye-laws governing the Bodhan Bar Association nor the ballot paper stipulated that use of any mark other than the Swastik symbol would automatically invalidate a ballot. Although the respondents asserted that separate instructions had been displayed and circulated electronically, the Court noted that "no contemporaneous material, circular, resolution, notification or documentary evidence" had been produced in support of that assertion.

The Court held that the tick mark placed against the petitioner's name "unequivocally manifests the intention of the voter" and that there was no allegation that the ballot contained any identifying feature, ambiguity or mutilation. In such circumstances, the disputed ballot could not have been rejected merely because the voter used a tick mark instead of a Swastik symbol.

The Court also found that the Election Officer lacked any authority under the bye-laws to split the tenure of an elected office between two rival candidates. Observing that the office of General Secretary carries a definite tenure prescribed by the bye-laws, the Court held that an authority conducting elections "cannot assume powers not vested in it, nor can it supplement, amend or rewrite the bye-laws under the guise of resolving an electoral deadlock." Even assuming that both candidates had orally consented to such an arrangement, the Court held that "there can be no estoppel against statute or law" and that consent could not confer jurisdiction where none existed.

Finding that the rejection of the disputed ballot had materially affected the election result, the Court declared the ballot valid, held that the petitioner had secured 54 votes against 53 polled by respondent No.3, and declared him duly elected as General Secretary of the Bodhan Bar Association for the year 2026-27.

Case Title: Samaiah P v. The District Registrar, Nizamabad District & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No. 9805 of 2026

Appearance: Mr. D. Jagadishwar Rao for the petitioner; Ms. Mallareddygari Harthika for respondent No.2; Mr. G. Dinesh Patil for respondent No.3.

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 102