Tick Mark on Ballot Is Valid: Telangana HC Declares Advocate Elected as Bodhan Bar Association General Secretary

Telangana High Court held that rejecting a tick-marked ballot for want of a Swastik symbol, where no bye-law mandated it, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and that the Election Officer had no power to split a General Secretary's tenure between two tied candidates.

The Telangana High Court on 24 June 2026 allowed a writ petition challenging the conduct of the Bodhan Bar Association elections for 2026–27 and declared the petitioner, advocate Samaiah P, duly elected as General Secretary of the Association. Justice N. Tukaramji, sitting singly at Hyderabad, held that the Election Officer's rejection of a ballot bearing a tick mark (✓) in place of the prescribed Swastik symbol was arbitrary and without basis in the governing bye-laws, and that the Election Officer's further direction — that the two tied candidates share the General Secretary's office for six months each — was ultra vires his powers and wholly alien to the Association's bye-laws.

The Dispute Before the Court

Elections to the Bodhan Bar Association were conducted for the year 2026–27 under the supervision of Respondent No. 2, the Election Officer. The petitioner, Samaiah P, and Respondent No. 3, Sri Wajeed Hussain, both contested for the post of General Secretary. Of 120 members, 108 exercised their franchise.

During counting, one ballot cast in favour of the petitioner was rejected by the Election Officer on the ground that it bore a tick mark rather than the prescribed Swastik symbol. With that ballot excluded, both candidates were shown to have secured 53 votes each. Faced with this tie, the Election Officer declared that the office would be shared rotationally — each candidate holding it for six months.

The petitioner challenged both actions before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: first, the invalidation of the disputed ballot, and second, the rotational-tenure direction. He sought a declaration that he had been duly elected as General Secretary for 2026–27. The petitioner also assailed the rejection of his representation dated 28 March 2026 as a non-speaking order passed without application of mind.

Respondents' Preliminary Objection: Alternative Remedy

Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 raised a preliminary objection: the petitioner had a specific remedy under Article 25 of the Model Bye-laws of the Bar Council of Telangana for resolution of election disputes and ought to have pursued it instead of approaching the High Court. The respondents further contended that the Bodhan Bar Association is a private body and that the Election Officer is not a statutory authority amenable to writ jurisdiction.

Justice Tukaramji rejected these contentions at the threshold. Relying on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1, the court reiterated that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition where the challenge discloses jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice, or arbitrariness. The court also referred to Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771, which described the alternative-remedy rule as one of self-imposed restraint rather than a limit on the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction.

The court found that the controversy raised precisely those questions — jurisdictional error, arbitrariness, and violation of fairness in an electoral process — that justified exercise of writ jurisdiction, and declined to dismiss the petition on this ground alone.

The Ballot-Validity Question: No Bye-Law Mandated the Swastik Mark

The court turned to the central factual and legal question: whether the Election Officer was justified in rejecting the disputed ballot.

The Election Officer's sole stated reason was that the voter had used a tick mark instead of a Swastik symbol. The respondents asserted that prior to polling, specific instructions had been displayed on the notice board and circulated electronically, requiring exclusive use of the Swastik mark and warning that any other marking would invalidate the ballot.

Justice Tukaramji found this assertion unsupported. Neither the bye-laws governing the Bodhan Bar Association nor the ballot paper placed before the court contained any stipulation declaring that use of a mark other than the Swastik symbol would automatically invalidate a ballot. The note printed on the ballot beneath the candidate names read: “Vote only up to seven candidates; if more than seven votes are cast with Swastik symbol, the ballot paper shall be treated as invalid.” The court read this note as prescribing a maximum number of votes, not as mandating that only Swastik-marked ballots would be treated as valid. Critically, no contemporaneous circular, resolution, notification or documentary evidence was produced to establish that uniform instructions requiring exclusive use of the Swastik mark had in fact been issued before polling.

The court then applied established election jurisprudence: where the governing rules do not expressly declare a ballot invalid for non-compliance with a prescribed mode of marking, a ballot that clearly and unmistakably reflects the voter's intention ought not to be rejected on purely technical grounds. On the facts, the tick mark against the petitioner's name unequivocally manifested the voter's intention. The ballot contained no identifying feature compromising secrecy, and there was no suggestion of ambiguity, mutilation, or multiple possible interpretations.

Rejecting the ballot in these circumstances, the court held, amounted to elevating procedural formality over substantive democratic choice and resulted in disenfranchisement without authority of law. The rejection was held arbitrary, unreasonable, unsupported by any provision of the bye-laws, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Rotational-Tenure Direction: Ultra Vires the Election Officer's Powers

Having found the ballot rejection invalid, the court addressed the Election Officer's decision to split the General Secretary's tenure between the two candidates.

Neither Respondent No. 2 nor Respondent No. 3 could point to any provision in the bye-laws authorising the Election Officer to devise a rotational arrangement for holding an elected office in the event of a tie. The court observed that the Election Officer is entrusted only with the conduct and supervision of elections and possesses only such powers as are expressly conferred by the governing rules. An authority exercising administrative or quasi-judicial functions cannot assume powers not vested in it, and the power to conduct elections cannot by necessary implication be extended to include the power to divide an elected tenure between rival candidates. The court described such an arrangement as “alien to democratic principles governing representative institutions” and held it clearly ultra vires the Election Officer's powers.

The respondents had contended that both candidates orally consented to the arrangement and that the petitioner was therefore estopped from questioning it. The petitioner categorically denied having given consent. The court found that no contemporaneous record, undertaking, resolution or written consent had been placed before it — only a bald assertion. The court went further and held that even if some form of consent had been given, it could not validate an act otherwise beyond the bye-laws. It is settled that there can be no estoppel against statute or law; a person cannot by consent, acquiescence or waiver confer jurisdiction upon an authority that otherwise lacks it.

The Non-Speaking Rejection of the Petitioner's Representation

The petitioner had filed a representation requesting reconsideration of the rejected ballot. The Election Officer disposed of it by stating merely that the results had already been declared. The court found that this order showed no application of mind to the objections raised and bore the characteristics of a non-speaking order, adding further weight to the conclusion that the impugned actions warranted interference.

Arithmetic Consequence

The court noted the direct electoral consequence of its findings. Had the disputed ballot been counted, the petitioner would have secured 54 votes against 53 secured by Respondent No. 3, and would have been declared elected. The rejection of that ballot had materially affected the outcome of the election.

Order

Justice Tukaramji allowed Writ Petition No. 9805 of 2026. The action of Respondent No. 2 in invalidating the disputed ballot and in directing a rotational tenure of six months each was declared illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The disputed ballot marked with a tick (✓) was held to be a valid vote. With that vote counted, the petitioner, Samaiah P, was declared to have secured 54 valid votes against 53 secured by Respondent No. 3, Sri Wajeed Hussain, and was declared duly elected as General Secretary of the Bodhan Bar Association for the year 2026–27. The respondents were directed to give effect to this declaration forthwith. There was no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand closed.