Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Medical Council Elections, Cites Alternate Remedy

According to the petitioners, the elections—conducted via an online e-voting system, originally required three OTPs to authenticate and complete a vote, as per the APMC e-voting Manual for Voters-2026. The 3rd OTP demonstrated completion of the voting process and after exercising the 3rd OTP, no voter would be allowed to cast votes again and login access would automatically be denied. However, the mandate of the third OTP was reportedly dispensed with on the day of the voting on account of complaints and representations.

Thus, the petitioners filed a writ petition, urging the Court to declare the election of thirteen elected members of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council conducted pursuant to a Gazette Notification dated 19.01.2026 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners contended that the action of dispensing with the 3rd OTP took place after commencement of the voting process by the members, which violated the fundamental principles of electoral fairness and transparency. They also contended that the same allegedly allowed voters to log in multiple times and cast more than one vote, thereby raising concerns about integrity and fairness of the election process. Thus, the petitioners sought cancellation of the entire election, along with a directive for fresh polls.

In contrast, the State argued that the law provided an alternative remedy under Rule 19 of the 1978 Rules, which entitles aggrieved parties to file an appeal before the Government to address alleged irregularities in elections.

For reference, Rule 19(1) of the 1978 Rules provides that the Government shall give an opportunity to all the parties concerned to show cause why the election should not be set aside, before actually setting aside an election in appeal.

Against this backdrop, Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda emphasised that once the election was already completed, the voter can challenge the election on the guise of irregularities or illegalities only by way of the alternative method, but not by way of writ of mandamus. Noting that the Court cannot proceed to redress the grievance of the petitioners under its extraordinary jurisdiction, it directed the petitioners to avail the statutory alternative remedy under Rule 19 of the 1978 Rules.

“… on perusal of the Rule-19 as extracted above, the petitioners are entitled to avail statutory appeal before the 3rd Respondent within reasonable time if the petitioners intended to challenge the same. After such appeal the 3rd Respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible. However, this Court inclined to direct the Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 to comply the Rule 17 to preserve, secure and maintain, in their original form, all electronic records and digital artefacts connected with APMC e-Voting 2026 carried out pursuant to the Gazette Notification dated 19.01.2026 for a period of six months or till further orders in appeal filed by the petitioners.”, the Single-Judge concluded.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition.

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 6163/2026

Case Title: POLAVARAPU PHANIDHAR v. UNION OF INDIA and Ors

Click Here To Read/Download Order