HC issues notice on plea challenging only Telugu electoral enumeration form

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday heard a writ filed by social worker M A Mujeeb of Karimnagar challenging the decision of the Election Commission authorities to print and distribute Special Intensive Revision (SIR) enumeration forms only in Telugu from June 25 to July. The petition was heard by the single bench of Justice Pulla Karthik.

Mujeeb sought a declaration that the action of the EC, the Chief Electoral Officer of Telangana, the Karimnagar collector and district election officer and other authorities was arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. He contended that issuing the forms only in Telugu violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) and is contrary to Rule 4 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The petitioner challenged the authorities’ failure to consider his representations dated June 16 and June 18.

According to the petition, distributing the enumeration forms exclusively in Telugu would create serious difficulties for voters who are not familiar with the language. It was argued that such voters may face problems understanding the instructions, verifying personal details, identifying mistakes, making corrections and providing accurate information.

The petitioner stated that the language barriers could lead to errors, omissions, delays and even exclusion from the electoral revision process, affecting effective participation in the democratic process.

The petition referred to Rule 4 of the Registration of Electors Rules, which states that the electoral roll for each constituency shall be prepared in such form and in such language or languages as directed by the EC.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior counsel argued that printing and distributing SIR enumeration forms only in Telugu was part of a larger conspiracy to remove minority community voters from the electoral rolls.

After hearing the submissions, the court issued notices to the respondent authorities and directed them to file their counters. The case was adjourned to June 29 for further hearing.

Court directs HCA committee to decide Deccan Arsenal Cricket Club’s inclusion in B division tournament

On Thursday the HC single bench of Justice Natcharaju Venkata Shravan Kumar heard a writ filed by Deccan Arsenal Cricket Club, represented by its in-charge president Sahebzada Azmath Ali Khan of Purani Haveli.

The petitioner challenged the actions of the State, the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA), its Apex Council, Chief Executive Officer and Supervisory Committee.

The club alleged the respondents had failed to implement the final and binding order passed by the Ombudsman on April 10, in case 9 of 2026. The petitioner contended that the Ombudsman’s decision, which was consistent with judgments of the Supreme Court and the HC, entitled the club to continue as a B division member and participate in HCA tournaments.

The club argued that despite the Ombudsman’s order and a subsequent order passed by the HC on May 6 in WP 15349 of 2026, the respondents had not taken a decision regarding its participation in the B division competitions for the 2026-27 season.

The petitioner sought directions to allow the club to participate in all B division league, knockout, playoff and tournament matches conducted by the HCA and requested that no schedule be finalised without including the club.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the Ombudsman had already directed the retention of the club in the B division and that the order was final and binding. It was argued that the authorities were required either to implement the order or take a decision consistent with the treatment given to other similarly placed teams.

Justice Kumar observed that the court could not go beyond the orders already passed by a coordinate bench and that such orders had to be implemented unless modified through appropriate legal proceedings. The court noted that if any party was aggrieved by the earlier orders, the proper remedy was to seek a review.

Counsel appearing for the respondents informed the court that, in compliance with the earlier HC order, the issue had been placed before the single member supervisory committee on June 9. It was submitted that notices had been issued to all concerned parties and that the proceedings would be concluded by July 2.

The respondents stated that the B division two-day league matches would commence on July 14 and that a decision regarding the petitioner’s case would be taken before that date after giving all interested parties an opportunity of hearing.

Taking note of the submissions, the court directed the supervisory committee to consider the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the Ombudsman’s order and the earlier HC directions. The court observed that the petitioner and all interested parties should be given a fair opportunity of hearing before a decision is taken regarding the club’s inclusion in the B division competitions.

The writ was disposed off in terms of the submissions, with Justice Kumar emphasising that the case should be decided in accordance with the existing judicial and Ombudsman orders.