Nominated Town Panchayat Members Cannot Vote In Legislative Council Polls : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that nominated members of Town Panchayats are not entitled to vote in elections to the Karnataka Legislative Council from Local Authorities' Constituencies, ruling that their inclusion in the electoral roll is contrary to the constitutional scheme.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed...
The Supreme Court has held that nominated members of Town Panchayats are not entitled to vote in elections to the Karnataka Legislative Council from Local Authorities' Constituencies, ruling that their inclusion in the electoral roll is contrary to the constitutional scheme.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed a batch of appeals challenging the Karnataka High Court's orders, which had held that nominated members could not participate in the electoral process and had directed exclusion of their votes from the recount.
The dispute arose from the 2021 election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from the Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities' Constituency. The returned candidate had won by a margin of six votes. However, 12 nominated members of four Town Panchayats had been included in the electoral roll and had cast their votes, leading to a challenge by the defeated candidate. The High Court had subsequently held that nominated members were ineligible to vote, directed segregation of their ballots and ordered a recount.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that Article 171(3)(a) of the Constitution and Section 27(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 use the expression “members” of local authorities and do not distinguish between elected and nominated members. They also contended that once the electoral roll had attained finality, votes cast by persons included in it could not subsequently be invalidated.
Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that the constitutional framework introduced by the 74th Constitutional Amendment requires a harmonious interpretation of Article 171 with Article 243-R, which expressly distinguishes between elected and nominated members of municipalities.
“The constitutional distinction between elected and nominated members is clear and intentional,” the Court observed, noting that elected representatives derive authority from a democratic mandate, whereas nominated members are inducted because of their expertise and perform an advisory rather than representative role.
The bench said permitting nominated members to vote in Legislative Council elections despite being barred from voting in municipal meetings would create a constitutional anomaly.
“If Article 171(3)(a) of the Constitution was to be interpreted literally so as to include nominated members, an unreasonable consequence would follow… a nominated member who is not allowed by the Constitution to vote in the municipality's own decision-making process would still be allowed to vote in the election of a member of the Legislative Council,” the judgment stated.
Accordingly, the Court held that the expressions “members of municipalities” in Article 171(3)(a) and “every member” in Section 27(2)(b) of the 1950 Act must be understood to refer only to elected representatives who possess voting rights within the concerned local authority.
The Court also rejected the contention that the finality of electoral rolls protected the votes already cast by nominated members. It distinguished earlier decisions on the ground that they dealt with ordinary irregularities in electoral rolls, whereas the present case involved persons whose inclusion in the electoral college was found to be unconstitutional. “The principle of finality… cannot override the Constitution,” the bench held.
On the issue of recount, the Court held that the requirement under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 that the election result must be materially affected was satisfied because the returned candidate's victory margin was six votes while 12 invalid votes had been cast by nominated members.
The bench further rejected the argument that identifying and segregating the ballots of nominated members would violate the secrecy of the ballot, observing that secrecy cannot be invoked to sustain a constitutional illegality. It accepted the Returning Officer's evidence that the votes of nominated members could be identified through ballot papers, counterfoils and marked electoral rolls.
Dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court's judgments, directed the Registry to transmit the sealed recount report to the High Court, and ordered the respondent authorities to implement the High Court's directions within 30 days.
Appearances
For the petitioners/appellants: Senior Advocates Shekhar Naphade, S. Niranjan Reddy and Anand Sanjay M. Nuli appeared, instructed by AORs Randhir Kumar Ojha and M/s Nuli & Nuli.
For the respondents: Senior Advocates A.N. Venugopala Gowda, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and V. Giri. The Union of India was represented by Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj.
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 171(3)(a) vs. Article 243-R — Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Section 27(2)(b) — Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 — Section 352(1)(b) — Electoral Rights of Nominated Members in Legislative Council Elections — Purpose of Local Authority Representation - Held: Nominated members of Town Panchayats/Municipalities do not possess the right to vote in elections to the State Legislative Council from a Local Authorities' Constituency - The constitutional distinction between elected representatives and nominated members under Article 243-R is clear and intentional - Nominated members are inducted for their expertise and hold a purely advisory role; they are expressly barred by the Proviso to Article 243-R from voting in the municipal bodies' own meetings - Allowing them to vote in Legislative Council elections would yield the anomalous and unreasonable consequence of granting them greater voting power in a constitutional legislative body than they possess within their own municipality - The expressions "members of municipalities" under Article 171(3)(a) and "every member" under Section 27(2)(b) of the 1950 Act must be contextually and harmoniously interpreted to apply only to those members who are elected representatives and possess active voting rights within their local authority - Inclusion of nominated members in such electoral rolls is unconstitutional and void ab initio. [Paras 30 – 38]
Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 100(1)(d)(iii) — Finality of Electoral Rolls vs. Constitutional Invalidity — Material Effect Test — Secrecy of Ballot - Held: The principle of finality of electoral rolls is meant to ensure electoral stability, but it cannot override the Constitution or validate the participation of constitutionally ineligible persons whose inclusion is void ab initio - Where the margin of victory is narrow (6 votes) and the number of unconstitutional votes cast by nominated members is double the margin (12 votes), the requirement of the election being "materially affected" under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) stands fully established - the principle of secrecy of the ballot is not absolute and cannot be invoked to perpetuate a constitutional illegality - The segregation of invalid votes using ballot papers, counterfoils, and marked copies of the electoral roll by the Returning Officer is legally permissible to preserve the purity of the electoral process. [Paras 40-46]
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Maintainability of Writ Petition — Alternative Remedy under Election Law - Held: The rule requiring the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion, not a rule of law, and does not oust writ jurisdiction where the controversy involves a pure question of law - When the challenge is raised prior to the election and goes to the root of the composition/legality of the electoral college (inclusion of nominated members) rather than routine irregularities in the electoral roll or the conduct of the election process, a writ petition under Article 226 is fully maintainable - This is particularly true when the statutory remedy under Section 27 of the 1950 Act is illusory or ineffective. [Relied on Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi, (2004) 5 SCC 409; Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, (2023) 5 SCC 41; Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 267; Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 1; Paras 23, 24, 25, 26, 40-49]
Case : Pranesh M.K. v. A.V. Gayathri & Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 686