SC: Nominated Members of Town Panchayats Cannot Vote in Legislative Council Elections

In a decisive blow to executive influence in local governance, the Supreme Court has ruled that nominated members of Town Panchayats are constitutionally barred from voting in Legislative Council elections, declaring their inclusion in electoral rolls void ab initio. This judgment fortifies the democratic sanctity of the upper house by ensuring only representatives with a direct mandate participate in the indirect electoral college of local authorities.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered this landmark decision while dismissing a batch of appeals. The Court was tasked with determining whether nominated councillors, who are barred from voting in municipal meetings, could legally participate in elections to the Karnataka Legislative Council.

Constitutional Distinction Between Elected and Nominated Members

The Court emphasized that the 74th Constitutional Amendment fundamentally transformed urban local bodies, creating a clear distinction between elected representatives and nominated experts. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The constitutional distinction between elected and nominated members is clear and intentional, as the elected members derive their authority from the democratic mandate of the electorate and represent the will of the people. On the other hand, the nominated members are inducted into the municipal body because of their expertise, experience or specialised knowledge. Thus, their role is advisory and consultative rather than representative."

The bench further clarified that a literal interpretation of Section 27(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 would lead to an "unreasonable consequence" where a member barred from local municipal voting would possess higher voting power in a constitutional legislative body.

The Requirement of Material Effect on Election Results

Addressing the validity of the specific election in the 12-Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities Constituency, the Court noted that the appellant had won by a narrow margin of 6 votes. Since 12 invalid votes were cast by nominated members, the test of the result being "materially affected" under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was squarely satisfied.

The Court has following directions:

"The Registry is directed to transmit the sealed cover containing the recount report and the revised result to the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, forthwith. The respondent-authorities thereafter shall take appropriate steps as per the directions issued by the High Court in the order dated 29.01.2025 passed in Election Petition No. 1 of 2022 and the allied matters, within a period of 30 days from the date of this judgment, and thereafter, submit the report before the High Court as directed in the order dated 29.01.2025."

Key Takeaways:

Strengthening Grassroots Democracy

This ruling prevents the dilution of the democratic process by ensuring that only those with a democratic mandate influence the composition of the Legislative Council.

Harmony in Constitutional Interpretation

Constitutional provisions like Article 171 cannot be read in isolation; they must be harmonized with the democratic framework of Part IX-A of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Finality vs. Constitutionality

While electoral rolls are generally final, the Court held that the principle of finality cannot override a constitutional violation that renders the composition of an electorate void ab initio.

Maintainability of Writ Petitions

High Courts can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 even in electoral matters if the challenge pertains to a foundational illegality in the electoral roll and the alternative remedy is ineffective.

Ratio Decidendi:

The expression “members” in Article 171(3)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950 and Section 27(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 must be interpreted purposively to exclude nominated members who lack voting rights within their respective local authorities. Nominated members under Section 352(1)(b) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 are not entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for Legislative Council elections, as their role is advisory and they do not represent a democratic mandate.

Background:

The dispute arose from the 2021 election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from the Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities Constituency. Pranesh M.K. was declared elected by a margin of 6 votes. However, 12 nominated members from four Town Panchayats had participated in the poll.

Writ petitions were filed challenging the inclusion of these members in the electoral rolls. The High Court of Karnataka, both at the Single Judge and Division Bench stages, held that nominated members do not have the right to vote. Simultaneously, election petitions led to an order for a recount excluding the 12 invalid votes. The appellant argued that the electoral roll was final and that secrecy of the ballot would be violated by segregation.

The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, citing precedents like Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi ( "(2004) 5 SCC 409": 2004 CaseBase(SC) 695) and Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India ( "(2006) 7 SCC 1": 2006 CaseBase(SC) 9), affirming that the constitutional scheme of representative governance must prevail over procedural finality. The Court upheld the High Court's view that the inclusion of nominated members was unconstitutional and directed the implementation of the recount results.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9032-9034 OF 2026
NeutralCitation: 2026 INSC 716
Case Title: Pranesh M.K. Vs. A.V. Gayathri Shanthegowda & Ors. 
Appearances:
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Nataraj (Additional Solicitor General)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 665