Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench heard three clubbed writ petitions challenging the reservation of the posts of Mayor and Deputy Mayor in Kalaburagi Municipal Corporation and the inclusion of additional voters in the electoral roll. The petitioner in WP No.202488/2021, a Corporator from Ward No.53, filed the first petition contending that the Notification dated 11.02.2021 issued by the State Government reserving the posts of Mayor and Deputy Mayor to General (woman) and Backward Class-B categories respectively violated the mandatory rotation policy under Section 10 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and Article 243-T of the Constitution. He submitted that no post had ever been reserved for a Scheduled Tribe candidate in the Corporation and that the State Government had not filed its statement of objections despite the matter being listed on multiple occasions, which demonstrated discriminatory treatment. The connected writ petitions, WP Nos.200346 and 200347 of 2022, were filed by other Corporators who challenged the inclusion of five additional Members of Legislative Council (respondents 5 to 9) in the voter list dated 27.01.2022 prepared for the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor. They argued that the original electoral college comprised 55 elected Corporators and 8 ex-officio voters, totaling 63, and that the subsequent addition of five MLCs was contrary to law and aimed at affecting the democratic rights of the voters. The petitioners in these matters highlighted that the reservation of posts had been frequently modified from 2018 to 2022 and that the election process, originally scheduled for 20.11.2021, was postponed leading to changes in reservation. They contended that the inclusion of additional voters was manipulative. The Court, at the outset, referred to the Supreme Court decision in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, (2000) 8 SCC 216, and reiterated that any judicial decision that subserves the progress and facilitates the completion of an election does not amount to calling in question an election. It underscored that election disputes are not merely private civil disputes but affect the entire constituency, requiring a conscientious approach that balances the welfare of the constituency and the strengthening of democracy. Senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned notification dated 11.02.2021 was unsustainable as it undermined the root of rotation, and that the State had failed to justify its deviation from the guidelines and earlier notifications. The Advocate General and counsel for the contesting respondents defended the State’s actions. The Court heard the arguments together, but the text of the judgment provided is incomplete and does not record the final decision or operative directions. The matter was reserved for orders.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Judicial Review - Scope of High Court's power under Article 226 - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Quoting Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, (2000) 8 SCC 216, Court observed that judicial decisions which subserve the progress and facilitate completion of an election do not amount to calling in question an election; election disputes are not purely private civil disputes and require conscientious approach balancing welfare of constituency and democracy (Paras 1-2). B) Municipal Law - Reservation of Offices - Rotation Policy under Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 - Sections 10, 10(1-A) and Article 243-T of Constitution - Petitioners contended that the notification reserving Mayor and Deputy Mayor posts to General (woman) and BCB categories violated rotation policy, as no reservation was ever provided for Scheduled Tribe candidates in Kalaburagi Municipal Corporation, and the State did not file objections despite multiple opportunities, indicating step-motherly treatment (Paras 3, 6). C) Municipal Elections - Voter List - Inclusion of Additional Voters - Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Election) Rules, 2014 - Petitioners challenged the inclusion of five additional Members of Legislative Council in the voter list for the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor as contrary to law and aimed at defeating the democratic rights of voters in the Corporation (Paras 4, 5, 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reservation of the posts of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Kalaburagi Municipal Corporation to General (woman) and BCB categories under the Notification dated 11.02.2021 violated the rotation policy under Section 10 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and Article 243-T of the Constitution; and whether inclusion of additional Members of Legislative Council in the voter list for the election was valid.
Law Points
- Election disputes involve public interest
- judicial intervention permissible to facilitate completion of election
- rotation of reserved posts under Section 10 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act
- 1976 must comply with Article 243-T
