The Supreme Court has ruled that nominated members of Town Panchayats cannot vote in elections to the Karnataka Legislative Council held from Local Authorities’ Constituencies, holding that their inclusion in the electoral roll runs contrary to the constitutional framework.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed a batch of appeals challenging Karnataka High Court orders that had excluded the votes of nominated members and directed a recount.
The dispute arose from the 2021 Legislative Council election in the Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities’ Constituency. The winning candidate had secured victory by just six votes. However, 12 nominated members from four Town Panchayats had voted in the election, prompting the defeated candidate to challenge the result.
The Karnataka High Court subsequently held that the nominated members were not eligible to participate in the election. It ordered that their ballots be identified and excluded before the votes were recounted.
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 refer broadly to “members” of local authorities and do not expressly draw a distinction between elected and nominated members.
They also argued that once the electoral roll had been finalised, votes cast by individuals included in that roll could not later be declared invalid.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument.
The Bench held that the constitutional scheme, particularly after the 74th Constitutional Amendment, requires Article 171 to be read alongside Article 243-R, which recognises a distinction between elected and nominated members of municipalities.
According to the Court, elected members derive their authority from the electorate, while nominated members are inducted on account of their expertise and do not represent voters in the same manner.
Allowing nominated members to vote in a Legislative Council election, despite their inability to vote in the municipality’s own decision-making process, would create an untenable constitutional inconsistency, the Court observed.
The Court therefore held that the expression “members of municipalities” under Article 171(3)(a), as well as the reference to “every member” under Section 27(2)(b) of the 1950 Act, must be understood as referring to elected members who possess voting rights in the concerned local authority.
The Bench also rejected the argument that the finalisation of the electoral roll protected the votes already cast.
It held that the principle of finality attached to electoral rolls could not be used to validate an unconstitutional composition of the electoral college. The Court distinguished earlier rulings concerning ordinary defects or irregularities in electoral rolls from the present case, where the participation of the nominated members itself was found to be constitutionally impermissible.
The Court further held that the statutory requirement for ordering a recount was met. Since the winning candidate’s margin was six votes and 12 votes cast by ineligible nominated members were involved, the election result could clearly have been materially affected.
The Bench also rejected the argument that separating the ballots cast by nominated members would compromise the secrecy of the ballot. It observed that ballot secrecy could not be invoked to protect a constitutional illegality.
The Returning Officer’s evidence showed that the ballots could be identified with the help of ballot papers, counterfoils and marked electoral rolls.
The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the appeals, upheld the Karnataka High Court’s orders and directed that the sealed recount report be transmitted to the High Court. The concerned authorities have been directed to implement the High Court’s directions within 30 days.
