Common Order
1. In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondent No.6 in deleting their names from the electoral roll of Madanapuram Village, Chintapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District without any reason, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to restore the petitioners’ names in the electoral roll of the said village and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions are that the petitioners are all women and allegedly residents of Madanapuram Village, Chintapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District and their votes were recorded in the said village. The voter Ids of the petitioners are as follows:
On the basis of the said voter IDs, the petitioner in W.P.No.31471 of 2025 has also contested as Sarpanch and served as Sarpanch in the said village for the term 2019-2024. It is submitted that the petitioner was in public service for several years and during her tenure as a Sarpanch, the petitioner executed various developmental works including the construction of roads, graveyards and other essential infrastructure. It is submitted that the petitioner got married in the year 2022 to one Sri Sai Koshore Yadav and at the time of her marriage, the petitioner was gifted with agricultural property in Survey No.3/AA/2 of Madanapuram Village by her father and the petitioner claims to be residing in the said village with her husband and thereby cultivating the said land. It is also stated that the petitioner’s husband also runs a hotel business under the name and style of ‘B Village Hotel’ at Chintapalli Mandal. Similarly, te petitioners in W.P.Nos.32662, 32923, 32926 and 32927 of 2025 also claim to be residing in this village only in spite of their marriage to persons from other places.
3. It is submitted that out of political vendetta, one Jangiti Narasimha filed a false and frivolous complaint on 29.07.2025 before the election authorities alleging that the petitioners in these Writ Petitions and others were not residing in the subject village and requested deletion of their names from the voters list. Thereafter, respondent No.6 issued a notice bearing File No.B/04/2025 dt.28.08.2025 calling the explanation of the petitioners as to why their names should not be deleted from the voters list. The petitioners claim to have appeared personally on 06.09.2025 and submitted their written explanations affirming their continuous residence in Madanapuram Village and also submitted a representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chintapalli along with supporting documents and the Mandal Revenue Officer also recorded their statements on 23.09.2025. It is alleged that without taking the same into consideration, respondent No.6 has arbitrarily deleted the names of the petitioners from the electoral roll of the subject village. It is stated that on verifying the official website of the Election Commission only, the petitioners noticed that their names have been removed from the voters list and having no other effective and alternative remedy, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing these Writ Petitions.
4. The petitioners in all the Writ Petitions are thus aggrieved by the action of respondent No.6 Election Officer in deleting their names from the electoral roll of Madanapuram Village, Chintapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District without any reason and they are seeking a direction to the respondents to restore their names in the electoral roll of the said village. It is stated that they are all married women but they are having voter IDs in Ward Nos.3 and 6 respectively of their paternal village.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that right to vote is a fundamental right and therefore, the petitioners could not have been deprived of the said right in an arbitrary manner. She submitted that the petitioners did not have their votes registered in any other village and have continued to reside in the subject village and it was also decided that the said village would become the permanent residence of the petitioners. She submitted that the petitioners have given the said statements before the election officer and all the relevant documents have also been submitted, but the authorities have failed to consider the said documents and have arbitrarily removed the names of the petitioners. She placed reliance upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Adv. Sreelakshmi Sabu Vs. The State Election Commissioner of Kerala (WP (C) No.38435 of 2025 dt.17.10.2025 : 2025:KER:77440) in support of her contention that Electoral Registration Officer should consider the application of the petitioner therein strictly in accordance with Section 21 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act notwithstanding the fact that her earlier application was rejected. She submitted that the request of the petitioners herein also should be considered by the respondents in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order and submitted that on receipt of a complaint from one Jangiti Narasimha, the enquiry was conducted and the statements of the petitioners were also recorded, wherein the petitioner in W.P.No.31471 of 2025 stated that after her marriage in the year 2022, she has been residing at Karmanghat, Ranga Reddy District with her husband and in-laws and that it is only after being satisfied that she was not an ordinarily resident of Madanapuram Village, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the necessary step of deleting her name from the electoral roll has been passed. Similarly, in the case of other petitioners also, enquiries were caused and thereafter, after following the prescribed procedure only, their names were removed from the voters list of the subject village. He further submitted that there is an alternative remedy available under the Representation of People Act, 1950 and the petitioners have to avail the same. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the case of Batchina Gouthami and others Vs. The Election Commission of India and others (2024(2)ALT 301 : MANU/AP/0134/2024 : 2024:APHC:3686). He submitted that under the Representation of People Act, 1950, certain guidelines have been issued and Section 20 Sub-section (7) thereof provides that the Electoral Registration Officer shall determine the question as to where a person is ordinarily resident at any relevant time, with reference to all the facts and to such rules as may be made in this behalf by the Central Government in consultation with the Election Commission. He submitted that the Gauhati High Court in a case has defined that the term ‘ordinarily resident’ to mean a usual and normal resident of that place and that residence must be permanent in character and not temporary or casual and it must be for a considerable time and that the resident must have intention to reside there permanently and that it is the place where he habitually sleeps at night. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the person has to have an intention to stay at that place for a considerably long time. He has also referred to the documents which have to be considered as proof of ordinarily resident, which are as follows:
(i) Water/Electricity/Gas connection Bill for that address (at least 1 year)
(ii) Aadhaar Card
(iii) Current passbook of Nationalized/Scheduled Bank/Post Office
(iv) Indian Passport
(v) Revenue Department’s Land Owning records including Kisan Bahi
(vi) Registered Rent Lease Deed (In case of tenant)
(vii) Registered Sale Deed (In case of own house)
(As per ECI Lr.No.3/ER/2021/SRR/Vol.II, dated 23.06.2022 (Amendment in Election Laws and Rules)
He further submitted that residence is with regard to a constituency and the petitioner has to be residing in that constituency for her to be recorded as a voter. He further submitted that right to vote is not a fundamental right but it is a statutory right and it is governed by the statute. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India and others Vs. Manmohan Singh and others ((2000) 1 SCC 591 : AIR 2000 SC 231) for the meaning of the term ‘ordinarily resident’ as referred to in Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the Representation of the People Act, 1950 prescribes for registration in any electoral roll and also for deletion from the electoral roll. The relevant provisions in Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20(1) & (1-A), 22 and 24 of the said Act are reproduced as under for ready reference:
“15. Electoral roll for every constituency.—For every constituency there shall be an electoral roll which shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of this Act under the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission.
16. Disqualifications for registration in an electoral roll.—(1) A person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he—
(a) is not a citizen of India; or
(b) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or
(c) is for the time being disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt practices and other offences in connection with elections.
(2) The name of any person who becomes so disqualified after registration shall forthwith be struck off the electoral roll in which it is included:
Provided that the name of any person struck off the electoral roll of a constituency by reason of a disqualification under clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall forthwith be reinstated in that roll if such disqualification is, during the period such roll is in force, removed under any law authorizing such removal.
17. No person to be registered in more than one constituency.—No person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for more than one constituency.
18. No person to be registered more than once in any constituency.—No person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for any constituency more than once.
19. Conditions of registration.—Subject to the foregoing provisions of this Part, every person who—
(a) is not less than eighteen years of age on the qualifying date, and
(b) is ordinarily resident in a constituency,
shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for that constituency.
20. Meaning of “ordinarily resident”.—(1) A person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily resident in a constituency on the ground only that he owns, or is in possession of, a dwelling house therein.
(1-A) A person absenting himself temporarily from his place of ordinary residence shall not by reason thereof cease to be ordinarily resident therein.
.... .... .... .... .... ....
22. Correction of entries in electoral rolls.—If the electoral registration officer for a constituency, on application made to him or on his own motion, is satisfied after such inquiry as he thinks fit, that any entry in the electoral roll of the constituency—
(a) is erroneous or defective in any particular,
(b) should be transposed to another place in the roll on the ground that the person concerned has changed his place of ordinary residence within the constituency, or
(c) should be deleted on the ground that the person concerned is dead or has ceased to be ordinarily resident in the constituency or is otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll,
the electoral registration officer shall, subject to such general or special directions, if any, as may be given by the Election Commission in this behalf, amend, transpose or delete the entry after proper verification of the facts in such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that before taking any action on any ground under clause (a) or clause (b) or any action under clause (c) on the ground that the person concerned has ceased to be ordinarily resident in the constituency or that he is otherwise not entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of that constituency, the electoral registration officer shall give the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the action proposed to be taken in relation to him after proper verification of facts in such manner as may be prescribed.
24. Appeals.—An appeal shall lie within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed—
(a) to the district magistrate or additional district magistrate or executive magistrate or district collector or an officer of equivalent rank, from any order of the electoral registration officer under Section 22 or Section 23.
(b) to the chief electoral officer, from any order of the district magistrate or the additional district magistrate under clause (a).”
Thus, for a voter to be recorded in any constituency, he or she has to be an ordinarily resident of the said constituency. In the case before this Court, the petitioners are women who are recorded as voters of the respective villages on becoming eligible to be registered as voters and the petitioners have also voted in elections of 2019 and the petitioner in W.P.No.31471 of 2025 was also elected as a Sarpanch and served as a Sarpanch during the term 2019-2024. During the said period, she claims to have executed various developmental works in the village and for this purpose, she seems to have resided in the subject village and there was never any question raised about her residence. It is therefore apt to consider as to what is crucial to be considered by the respondents before registration of a voter or for deletion of such a person’s name from voters list. It is an admitted position that under Sections 17 and 18 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, no person can register his vote in two places. Admittedly, herein all the petitioners’ votes have been recorded only in the village of Madanapuram and not at their marital places. Section 2(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 defines ‘elector’ as under:
“(e) “elector” in relation to a constituency means a person whose name is entered in the electoral roll of that constituency for the time being in force and who is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950).”
Admittedly, none of the petitioners herein have incurred any of the disqualifications mentioned under Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission has filed a copy of the relevant provisions of the Manual on Electoral Rolls, particularly in respect of determination of ordinary residence and for this purpose, the Election Commission has issued guidelines for registration of voters and they refer to the following documents to be considered as proof of ordinary residence:
(i) Water/Electricity/Gas connection Bill for that address (at least 1 year)
(ii) Aadhaar Card
(iii) Current passbook of Nationalized/Scheduled Bank/Post Office
(iv) Indian Passport
(v) Revenue Department’s Land Owning records including Kisan Bahi
(vi) Registered Rent Lease Deed (In case of tenant)
(vii) Registered Sale Deed (In case of own house)
(As per ECI Lr.No.3/ER/2021/SRR/Vol.II, dated 23.06.2022 (Amendment in Election Laws and Rules)
Apparently, the address of the petitioners, as recorded in the above documents, is Madanapuram Village and not that of their marital home and the petitioners have chosen to continue their voting right in the said constituency only. It is further seen that the Election Commission has not only directed the documents to be looked into as proof of ordinarily residence, but has also observed that temporary absence from place of ordinarily residence will not deprive a person of the qualification of ordinary residence if he possesses ability to return and has intention to return to that place. It is observed that where there is no proof of ordinary residence in the cases of homeless persons, the Booth Level Officer will visit the address given in Form 6 for more than one night to ascertain that the homeless person actually sleeps at the given place and this is prescribed only to avoid an eventuality of a homeless foreign national getting registered in electoral roll. The Election Commission has directed that in all such cases where homeless persons are registered in electoral rolls, a statement of such persons shall be recorded by the Booth Level Officer in which specific information about the place of his birth and the place of previous residence from where he has shifted to the present place of his ordinary residence, of such a person shall be asked for and that it will help the Electoral Registration Officer in deciding whether such a person is an Indian citizen or not. After giving various instances for registration in electoral rolls, the Election Commission has observed that all cases can neither be dealt with in an identical manner nor can any uniform rule be laid down to define ‘ordinarily residence’ and generally speaking, a person should not be enrolled at an address where he is staying temporarily; and on the other hand, he is to be enrolled at the normal place of residence even though he may be temporarily absent from there.
8. From the statements given by the petitioners before the Election Officer, it appears that the petitioners were residing in the subject village prior to their marriages and also intended to reside in the subject village in future and establish themselves there. No doubt, under Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, on an application made to him or on his own motion, the Electoral Registration Officer for a constituency can make any enquiry and after giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing, rectify the electoral roll. The procedure has been followed in this case, but the decision taken is under challenge in these cases. The only ground on which the impugned action is taken is that the petitioners are all married women and are living in their matrimonial homes and hence are not ordinarily residents of Madanapuram Village. The documents to be looked into for this purpose all bear the address of Madanapuram Village. The statements given also indicate their residence at Madanapuram Village. This Court finds that the Madras High Court in the case of G. Mayakannan Vs. The District Collector, Cuddalore District and others (W.P.No.2456 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.2772 & 2773 of 2021 dt.30.10.2023), while considering the case of the 3rd respondent therein to the post of Panchayat Secretary, which was denied to her on the ground that she is not a local resident of natal village, has observed thus:
“7. Jayakondam is the native place of the third Respondent and she is born and brought up in Jayakondam and her parents family is permanently residing at Jayakondam. A married woman though ordinarily lives at her husband’s place, cannot be presumed to have disowned her residential rights at her parents’ house on account of her marriage. For the purpose of getting a separate ration card after her marriage her name would have got deleted from her parents’ ration card and included in her husband’s ration card. With that alone it can not be said that a married woman had severed her ties with her parents’ place and her residential status in respect of her parent’s house has come to a closure once and for all. The rules of marriage do not impose any such condition on a woman.
8. It is not the contention of the petitioner that the third respondent’s natal family had uprooted from Jayakondam and they have established their residence elsewhere. The parents of the third Respondent are still in Jayakondam and the third respondent has every right to visit or stay with her parents at Jayakondam at her own convenience or choice. The third respondent has got her roots at Jayakondam and that is not denied by the petitioner. While so, he cannot perceive the third respondent as a stranger to her natal family and say that she can not claim any residential status at jayakondam in view of her marriage.
9. In today’s world, men and women go to several places for the sake of education or occupation, but still consider their native place as their permanent residence. There is a notion that a married woman completely abandons her native place and assumes her husband’s place as her only place of residence. If a married woman chooses to live between her natal home and marital home on account of her employment, business or otherwise nothing can prevent her to exercise her option. To retain or waive the native address is at the will of a married woman or her family members in certain circumstances. The will of a woman coupled with the existence of a physical body like a house at her parent’s place, in which she opts to live either by exercising her right or by obtaining consent/permission, is itself sufficient to provide her with a residential certificate relating to that place.”
9. The decisions relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for Election Commission are distinguishable on facts.
10. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the Election Officer ought not to have deleted the names of the petitioners from the electoral roll. The procedure laid down for verification of residence of a temporary or homeless person also is to ensure that no foreign national who is temporarily residing gets registered as a voter and not to deprive the citizen of this country from getting registered as a voter.
11. As regards the contention of the respondents that there is alternative remedy and therefore, the petitioners have to approach the District Collector for redressal of remedy, this Court also agrees that an appeal lies to the Collector but since the action of the respondents is immediately prior to Local Bodies elections and there is no efficacious remedy to the petitioners to get their names restored in the electoral roll of Madanapuram Village before the election notification is issued for local body elections or to get their names included in any other constituency after the qualified date, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned action.
12. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed and the impugned orders deleting the names of the petitioners are set aside and the respondents are directed to restore the votes of the petitioners in the respective wards of the subject village. No order as to costs.
13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |