Supreme Court bars nominated Town Panchayat members from voting in Legislative Council polls

A three-judge bench held nominated municipal members cannot vote in Legislative Council elections, upholding recount that excluded 12 such votes and unseated the returned candidate.

The Supreme Court has held that members nominated to a Town Panchayat under Section 352(1)(b) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 cannot be included in the electoral roll for a Local Authorities’ Constituency and cannot vote in elections to the Karnataka Legislative Council. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered the judgment on 16 July 2026, dismissing appeals arising out of the 12-Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities Constituency (2021) election.

The result had turned on a margin of six votes, against which 12 nominated members had voted. The Court affirmed the High Court of Karnataka’s direction to recount after excluding those votes, holding that the nominated members’ inclusion was contrary to the constitutional scheme. Justice Pancholi authored the judgment reported as 2026 INSC 716.

How the dispute reached the Court

Elections to the constituency were notified on 16 November 2021, with polling on 10 December 2021 and counting on 14 December 2021. Of 2,410 votes polled, 2,371 were valid. The appellant Pranesh M.K. secured 1,188 votes, including votes of nominated members, while Respondent No. 1 secured 1,182 votes. The appellant was declared elected by a margin of six votes.

The constituency drew its electorate from members of local bodies including Zilla Panchayat, Taluk Panchayat, Municipal Councils and Town Panchayats. In four Town Panchayats — Koppa, Mudigere, Sringeri and Narasimharajapura — three members each were nominated by the State Government under Section 352(1)(b) of the KMA, producing 12 nominated councillors whose names appeared in the electoral rolls.

Writ petitions challenged the inclusion of these nominated councillors. By judgment dated 3 November 2022, the High Court held the inclusion invalid and unconstitutional and directed deletion of their names. The Division Bench affirmed this on 20 April 2023, holding that nominated members have no right to vote in Legislative Council elections. Separately, election petitions challenged the appellant’s election on the ground that the nominated members’ votes were invalid and had materially affected the result.

By order dated 29 January 2025, the High Court directed securing and opening of ballot boxes, segregation of the ballot papers of the 12 nominated members, and recounting after excluding those votes. The appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Maintainability of the writ challenge

The Court first addressed the appellants’ objection that the writ petitions were not maintainable given remedies under the Representation of the People Acts. It found no merit. The challenge was not against the conduct of the election but against the legality of including nominated members in the electoral roll, raised before the election and going “to the root of the composition of the electoral college”.

Section 27 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 provided no effective mechanism to adjudicate the legality of such inclusion. The Court noted that the District Magistrate, as Electoral Registration Officer, had prepared the roll and was himself the appellate authority, rendering the remedy illusory. Relying on N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, it held that an alternative remedy does not preclude writ jurisdiction where the remedy is ineffective or the controversy is a pure question of law.

Why nominated members cannot vote

On the principal issue, the appellants argued that Article 171(3)(a) uses the words “members of municipalities” and Section 27(2)(b) of the 1950 Act uses “every member”, without confining these to elected members, unlike Articles 54 and 80. The Court found the submission attractive on a plain reading but said it overlooked the transformation brought by the Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992.

Article 243-R distinguishes elected representatives from nominated members. Clause (1) requires seats to be filled by direct election, while Clause (2) permits representation of persons with special knowledge or experience in municipal administration. The proviso bars such nominated members from voting in meetings of the municipality. Section 352 of the KMA carries the same restriction for Town Panchayats.

The Court reasoned that a literal reading of Article 171(3)(a) would produce an unreasonable result: a member barred from voting in the municipality’s own decision-making would nonetheless vote in electing a member of the Legislative Council. That would give nominated members greater voting power in a constitutional legislative body than within the municipality itself. Applying a purposive and harmonious interpretation, it held that “every member” and the Article 171(3)(a) expression cover elected members with voting rights within the local authority.

The bench drew on Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi and Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, both recognising the constitutional distinction between elected and nominated members, the latter having advisory and consultative roles.

Finality of rolls, material effect and ballot secrecy

The appellants invoked the finality of electoral rolls, relying on Hari Prasad Mulshanker Trivedi v. V.B. Raju, Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and Shyamdeo Pd. Singh v. Nawal Kishore Yadav. The Court distinguished those cases as concerning ordinary mistakes or irregularities in preparing rolls. Here, the inclusion was found unconstitutional and void ab initio, affecting the basic composition of the electoral college. Finality could not validate participation by persons found constitutionally ineligible.

The challenge had also not been raised for the first time after results. The inclusion had already been declared unconstitutional in the judgment of 20 April 2023, and no stay had been granted. The election petitions merely sought consequential relief.

On material effect, Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 allows an election to be declared void where the result is materially affected by reception of a void vote. With a victory margin of six and 12 invalid votes — double the margin — the Court held the requirement of material effect established.

The Court rejected the argument that segregating the nominated members’ votes would violate ballot secrecy. Citing Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, it said secrecy is not absolute and cannot sustain a constitutional illegality. The Returning Officer, examined as a witness, had stated that the nominated members’ votes could be segregated by comparing ballot papers, counterfoils and marked copies of the electoral rolls. The direction was confined to excluding void votes, not an inquiry into individual preferences.

Order

The Court found no perversity, manifest illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 136. It held that nominated members appointed under Section 352(1)(b) of the KMA were not entitled to inclusion in the electoral roll, and found no error in the High Court’s common order dated 29 January 2025 or the common judgment dated 20 April 2023. The appeals were dismissed.

The Registry was directed to transmit the sealed cover containing the recount report and revised result to the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka. The respondent-authorities were to take steps as directed by the High Court within 30 days of the judgment and submit a report before the High Court.