Nominated members of local authorities lack voting rights in Legislative Council elections under the constitutional scheme.

The case pertains to the 2021 election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from the 12-Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities Constituency

The electoral roll included 12 members nominated by the State Government under Section 352(1)(b) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act (KMA), 1964

The appellant was declared elected by a narrow margin of 6 votes

Respondents challenged the inclusion of these nominated members in the electoral rolls and their subsequent voting rights through writ petitions and election petitions

The High Court of Karnataka held their inclusion unconstitutional and ordered a recount of votes excluding the 12 nominated members

The appellant challenged these orders before the Supreme Court, arguing that the term "member" in electoral laws includes nominated members and that the electoral roll, once finalized, cannot be questioned

1. Whether nominated members of Town Panchayats have the right to be included in electoral rolls and vote in elections to the Legislative Council from a Local Authorities’ Constituency

2. Whether a writ petition challenging the legality of an electoral roll is maintainable in light of the bar under Article 329(b) and the availability of alternative remedies

3. Whether the inclusion of allegedly ineligible voters in a finalized electoral roll can be a ground to set aside an election under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

Article 171(3)(a) of the Constitution regarding the composition of Legislative Councils

Section 27(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, concerning the registration of "every member" in electoral rolls

Article 243-R, which prohibits nominated members from voting in municipal meetings

Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the 1951 Act regarding void votes

The Court followed the precedent in Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi (2004) and Shelly Oberoi v. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi (2023), which established that nominated members are distinct from elected representatives and lack certain voting rights to preserve democratic decentralization.

The Court rejected the appellant's literal interpretation of the term "every member," holding that constitutional provisions must be read harmoniously with the post-74th Amendment framework in Part IX-A

The Court reasoned that since Article 243-R and Section 352 of the KMA expressly bar nominated members from voting in municipal meetings due to their advisory role, it would be "unreasonable" and "contradictory" to allow them to vote in a higher constitutional legislative body

On the issue of maintainability, the Court held that the writ petition was valid as the challenge concerned a foundational illegality in the electoral college and a pure question of law, making the statutory remedy under the 1950 Act "illusory"

The Court determined that the principle of "finality of electoral rolls" cannot override constitutional mandates; the reception of 12 unconstitutional votes in an election decided by a 6-vote margin clearly satisfied the "materially affected" test under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the 1951 Act

The final holding confirms that "members" under Article 171(3)(a) refers only to those with democratic mandates and municipal voting rights

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s judgments

The Court directed the transmission of the recount report to the High Court of Karnataka to finalize the election results based on the exclusion of the 12 invalid votes