Telangana HC junks plea challenging KTR’s election to Sircilla

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday, August 4, dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) working president KT Rama Rao (KTR) to the Sircilla Assembly constituency, holding that election petitions cannot be entertained merely on the ground that a winning candidate allegedly lacked the required qualifications.

Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao held that to successfully challenge a candidate’s election, specific grounds prescribed under the election law must be made out and that only a voter of the relevant constituency or a candidate who actually contested the election is entitled to file such a petition.

The petition was filed by KK Mahender Reddy, who had contested the Sircilla seat on a Congress ticket at the last election. He alleged that KTR had failed to disclose certain facts in the affidavit filed along with his nomination papers.

Specifically, Mahender Reddy claimed that a property in Jubilee Hills had not been shown as part of KTR’s assets and that liabilities totalling Rs 10.50 lakh and Rs 88.15 lakh had not been properly reflected in his disclosures. He questioned how such amounts could have been paid without adequate declared assets. 

He also alleged that property purchases made in the name of KTR’s son had not been correctly shown in the candidate’s income and asset declarations and that details of lands, houses and other properties acquired by family members had similarly been left out.

The petitioner further alleged that KTR had not accurately accounted for his election campaign expenditure and had violated several provisions of the Representation of the People Act, the main law governing elections in India.

The High Court dismissed the election petitions, relying on Supreme Court guidelines on the grounds required to challenge the election of a sitting MLA. The court held that a petition cannot be sustained simply on the ground that a candidate may have lacked qualifications and that the petitioner had not made out the specific statutory grounds needed to void an election result.