The Supreme Court has held that nominated members of Town Panchayats are not entitled to vote in elections to the Karnataka Legislative Council from Local Authorities’ Constituencies.
The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi ruled that permitting nominated members—who are constitutionally barred from voting in municipal meetings—to participate in Legislative Council elections would undermine the democratic intent of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s decision directing exclusion of their votes and recounting of ballots, ultimately dismissing the appeals filed by the returned candidate and others.
In a batch of connected civil appeals arising from election disputes relating to the 2021 Karnataka Legislative Council elections from the Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities’ Constituency.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The controversy arose from the election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from the 12-Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities’ Constituency. The electoral college consisted of members of various local bodies, including Zilla Panchayats, Taluk Panchayats, Municipal Councils, and Town Panchayats.
In four Town Panchayats—Koppa, Mudigere, Sringeri, and Narasimharajapura—the State Government had nominated three members each under Section 352(1)(b) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Their names were included in the electoral rolls, enabling them to cast votes in the Legislative Council election.
Polling took place on 10 December 2021, and after counting, the returned candidate secured 1,188 votes, while the nearest rival obtained 1,182 votes, resulting in a narrow six-vote victory. Since 12 nominated members had participated in the election, their votes became decisive in determining the election outcome.
Following the election, writ petitions challenged the inclusion of nominated members in the electoral rolls. The Karnataka High Court held that their inclusion was unconstitutional and directed deletion of their names from the electoral rolls. The Division Bench affirmed this view.
Parallel election petitions argued that the votes cast by the nominated members had materially affected the election result. Accepting this contention, the High Court ordered the ballot boxes to be opened, the votes cast by the nominated members to be identified and excluded, and the remaining votes to be recounted.
The returned candidate challenged these directions before the Supreme Court.
The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether nominated members of Town Panchayats constitute “members” entitled to vote in elections to the Legislative Council under Article 171(3)(a) of the Constitution and Section 27(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
The appellants argued that Article 171 refers simply to “members” of municipalities and other local authorities, without distinguishing between elected and nominated members. They submitted that once nominated under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, such individuals became members of the municipality and therefore formed part of the electoral college.
It was also argued that the electoral roll had attained finality before the election, making it impermissible to challenge the validity of votes cast by persons whose names appeared in the final roll. They further contended that opening ballot boxes and identifying votes of nominated members would violate the secrecy of the ballot.
Rejecting these submissions, the Supreme Court adopted a purposive interpretation of the constitutional scheme introduced by the 74th Constitutional Amendment, which strengthened democratic local self-government.
The Court observed that Article 243R clearly distinguishes between elected representatives and nominated members. While nominated persons possessing special knowledge may be included in municipal bodies, the Constitution expressly denies them the right to vote in municipal meetings.
According to the Court, nominated members serve only an advisory role, whereas elected representatives derive authority from a democratic mandate. Therefore, the constitutional distinction between elected and nominated members cannot be ignored while interpreting Article 171 governing Legislative Council elections.
The Bench emphasized that constitutional provisions cannot be interpreted in isolation. Although Article 171(3)(a) and Section 27(2)(b) use the expression “members,” those provisions must be read harmoniously with Article 243R.
The Court reasoned that allowing nominated members to vote for members of the Legislative Council—even though they cannot vote in the municipality’s own meetings—would produce an anomalous constitutional result by granting them greater voting rights in State-level elections than in the municipal body to which they belong.
Accordingly, the Court held that the expression “members” in Article 171 and “every member” in Section 27 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 refers only to elected representatives possessing voting rights within the local authority.
The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the finality of electoral rolls protected the participation of nominated members.
While acknowledging that electoral rolls ordinarily attain finality to ensure certainty in elections, the Court clarified that such finality cannot override constitutional requirements.
The Court distinguished earlier precedents concerning routine errors in electoral rolls, observing that the present case involved a constitutional defect in the composition of the electoral college itself, since persons constitutionally ineligible to vote had been included in the roll.
Therefore, the doctrine of finality could not be invoked to validate participation of constitutionally ineligible voters.
The Court noted that the returned candidate had won by only six votes, whereas 12 nominated members had cast votes.
Since the number of invalid votes exceeded the margin of victory, the statutory requirement under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, requiring proof that improper reception of votes materially affected the election result, stood clearly satisfied.
The Bench also dismissed the contention that identifying the votes of nominated members would violate ballot secrecy.
It observed that secrecy of the ballot is an important electoral principle but is not absolute. The Returning Officer had already stated that votes cast by nominated members could be identified through ballot papers, counterfoils, and marked electoral rolls.
The recount, therefore, was confined to excluding votes found to be void in law and did not amount to an impermissible inquiry into individual voting preferences.
Finding no infirmity in the Karnataka High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals.
The Court directed the Registry to transmit the sealed recount report to the Karnataka High Court, following which the concerned authorities were instructed to implement the High Court’s earlier directions within 30 days and submit a compliance report.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
