Nominated Town Panchayat Members Can't Vote in MLC Elections: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that nominated members appointed under Section 352(1)(b) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act for Town Panchayats are not entitled to be included in the electoral roll prepared for the Local Authorities' Constituency. It ruled that their inclusion was contrary to the constitutional scheme and could not be sustained in law.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said a careful reading of Article 243-R of the Constitution shows that it consciously distinguishes between elected representatives and nominated members.

Court noted that Article 243-R(1) provides that all seats in a municipality shall be filled by persons chosen through direct elections. Article 243-R(2) permits representation of certain categories of persons, including those with special knowledge or experience in municipal administration.

"However, the proviso expressly provides that such nominated members shall not have the right to vote in meetings of the municipality," the Bench said.

Court observed that this distinction is deliberate. While elected members derive their authority from the democratic mandate of the people, nominated members are inducted because of their expertise, experience or specialised knowledge. Their role, therefore, is advisory and consultative rather than representative.

The judgment came while dismissing an appeal filed by Pranesh M K, Deputy Chairman of the Karnataka Legislative Council, against the Karnataka High Court's January 29, 2025 judgment setting aside his election from the 12-Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities' Constituency in 2021.

Why did the Supreme Court reject the nominated members' voting rights?

Answering this, the Court said the constitutional framework introduced by the 74th Constitutional Amendment strengthened democratic local self-government by ensuring governance through elected representatives.

The constituency in question comprised members of 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. The names of these 12 nominated councillors were included in the electoral rolls.

Pranesh M K was declared elected by a margin of just six votes.

On writ petitions, the Karnataka High Court held that the inclusion of these nominated members in the electoral roll was unconstitutional and directed deletion of their names. A division bench affirmed this view on April 20, 2023, holding that nominated members do not have the right to vote in Legislative Council elections.

Later, while deciding an election petition, the high court directed the ballot boxes to be opened, the votes cast by the 12 nominated members to be segregated and excluded, and the remaining votes to be recounted.

Before the Supreme Court, the principal issue was whether nominated members of Town Panchayats could vote in elections to the Karnataka Legislative Council from a Local Authorities' Constituency, and what effect their participation would have on the validity of the election.

The Bench observed that the dispute involved a pure question of constitutional and statutory interpretation and did not require adjudication of disputed facts.

Why did the court reject the appellants' interpretation?

The appellants argued that Article 171(3)(a) of the Constitution refers to "members of municipalities, district boards and other local authorities" without restricting the electorate to elected members. They also relied on Section 27(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which uses the expression "every member of each such local authority".

It was further argued that wherever the Constitution intended to restrict an electoral college to elected representatives, it had done so expressly, as in Articles 54 and 80. Therefore, once a person became a validly nominated member under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, that person should also be entitled to vote in Legislative Council elections.

The Supreme Court said the argument appeared attractive on a plain reading of the provisions but failed to account for the constitutional transformation brought about by the Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992.

The Bench emphasised that constitutional provisions cannot be interpreted in isolation or through a purely textual approach divorced from the constitutional structure. Instead, every provision must be harmoniously construed to give effect to the Constitution as a coherent whole.

Court noted that Part IX-A of the Constitution fundamentally restructured urban local governance by strengthening democratic local self-government through elected representatives.

It observed that if Article 171(3)(a) were interpreted literally to include nominated members, an anomalous situation would arise where a nominated member, who cannot vote in the municipality's own decision-making process, would nevertheless be entitled to vote in the election of a Member of the Legislative Council.

"This interpretation would give nominated members more voting power in the election of a constitutional legislative body than they have within the municipality itself, which Article 243-R of the Constitution never intended. The Constitution should not be interpreted in a way that creates such contradictions. The courts need to contextually interpret the provisions in order to further the constitutional objective, that is, democratic representation," the Bench said.

Court held that since nominated members are not democratically elected and cannot vote in municipal affairs, allowing them to participate in Legislative Council elections would dilute the democratic character of the electoral process and undermine the constitutional objective of strengthening local self-government.

"We are therefore in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that nominated members appointed under Section 352(1)(b) of the KMA were not entitled to be included in the electoral roll prepared for the Local Authorities' Constituency and their inclusion was contrary to the constitutional scheme and could not be sustained in law," the Bench said.

Electoral roll finality and ballot secrecy cannot override the Constitution

The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the finality of electoral rolls prevented any challenge to the inclusion of nominated members.

It observed that while finality of electoral rolls is important to ensure certainty and stability in elections, it cannot override the Constitution.

"The principle of finality is meant to prevent endless challenges to electoral rolls, but it cannot be used to validate the participation of persons who were found constitutionally ineligible in collateral proceedings to constitute the electorate itself," the Bench said.

Court also found no merit in the contention that segregating the votes cast by nominated members would violate the secrecy of the ballot.

It held that although ballot secrecy is an essential feature of free and fair elections, it is not an absolute principle and cannot be invoked to sustain a constitutional illegality.

Finding no perversity, manifest illegality or jurisdictional error in the high court's decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It directed its Registry to transmit the sealed cover containing the recount report and revised election result to the registrar general of the Karnataka High Court, and ordered the authorities to take further steps in accordance with the high court's directions, including recounting of votes.

Case Title: Pranesh M K Vs A V Gayathri Shanthegowda & Ors Etc Etc 

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi 

Date of Judgment: July 16, 2026