1 APHC010056232026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3233/2026 Between: 1. KATTAMREDDY ANANTH RUPESH, S/O K RAVI KUMAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, APMC REGISTRATION NO. APMC/FMR/91786 R/O. 26/12/75, BEHIND GVRR JR COLLEGE, MINI BYPASS ROAD, KALYANI NAGAR, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH - 524 004 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI. 2. ANDHRA PRADESH MEDICAL COUNCIL, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, 2ND FLOOR, DR. NTR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE RETURNING OFFICER, APMC ELECTIONS 2026, DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE NATIONAL MEDICAL COUNCIL, , REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, POCKET- 14, SECTOR - 8, DWARKA PHASE -1 NEW DELHI - 110077, INDIA ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in 2 the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent No. 1 in proposing to conduct the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Elections, 2026 vide G.O MS. No. 3 dated 08.01.2026 through online and subsequent issuance of the Election Schedule in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette vide Gazette No. APMC.ELEC/RO/1/2026 dated 19.01.2026 scheduling the said elections to be conducted on Online Mode without statutory framework, without prescribed safeguards and rules, and in violation of the Andhra Pradesh ,Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968, the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1978, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and constitutional principles governing free, fair, transparent and verifiable elections, personal data protection and Consequently set aside the G.O MS. No. 3 dated 08.01 .2026 issued by the Respondent No.1 and subsequent issuance of the Election Schedule in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette vide Gazette No. APMC.ELEC/RO/1/2026 dated 19.01 .2026 and further Consequently direct the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.1 herein to issue statutory guidelines and rules under Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968 prescribing the procedure and safeguards for conduct of the elections of Andhra Pradesh Medical Council, 2026 in online mode and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the operation of the operation of G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 08.01.2026 and all consequential proceedings, notifications, press notes and election schedules issued pursuant thereto, including the election schedule published by the Respondent No.3 proposing to conduct the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Elections, 2026 in online mode on 09.02.2026 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings including the conduct of the Elections online on 09.02.2026 of the Respondent No. 2 herein and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KATTAM REDDY DIVYA CHAITANYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3233/2026 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- <to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.1 in proposing to conduct the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Elections, 2026 vide G.O.MS.No.3 dated 08.01.2026 through online and subsequent issuance of the Election Schedule in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette vide Gazette No. APMC.ELEC/RO/1/2026 dated 19.01.2026 scheduling the said elections to be conducted on <Online Mode= without statutory framework, without prescribed safeguards and rules, and in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968, the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1978, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and constitutional principles governing free, fair, transparent and verifiable elections, personal data protection and consequently set aside the G.O.MS.No.3 dated 08.01..2026 issued by the Respondent No.1 and subsequent issuance of the Election Schedule in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette vide Gazette No. APMC.ELEC/RO/1/2026 dated 19.01.2026 and further consequently direct the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.1 herein to issue statutory guidelines and rules under Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968 prescribing the procedure and safeguards for conduct of the elections of Andhra Pradesh Medical Council, 2026 in online mode and pass such other order.= 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2. 5 3. The claim of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is one of the voters of 2nd respondent statutory council. While so, the 2nd respondent issued election notification on 19.01.2026, wherein election schedule was issued and mode of election was also notified. As per the mode of election, it is notified that the voting will be through online mode and voters must login into the website of APMMC to cast their vote, which is contrary to the rules in vogue i.e., Andhra Pradesh Medical Council (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred as > Rules, 1978?). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prevailing Rules, 1978 contemplates for ballot voting and also postal voting, but does not contemplates any E-voting or online voting. While so, without amending the Election Rules, the respondents issued election notification and schedule to conduct elections through online voting as per the wish and will of the respondents, which is contrary to the Rules, 1978. Therefore, any elections which are going to be conducted by respondent No.2 in terms of present election notice and schedule should be treated as illegal and contrary to the statutory Rules, 1978. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the common order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the High Court of Madras in W.P.Nos.28649 of 2022 and batch, wherein at para No.4 it is held as follows: 6 <4. Therefore, accepting the submission of the learned Advocate General, the elections of the council are postponed for a period of three months to be conducted afresh after the Government completes the revamping of the rules and the enactment, in consultation with the present office bearers of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council. The Government will also consider introducing reforms in the election process by incorporating provisions for e-voting/online voting, if feasible. This will not, however, impede the functioning of the present office bearers, till such time, the rules and the enactment are revamped or till such time the Government makes suitable alternative arrangement.= 6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 was suffered an order from this Court on 11.11.2025 in W.P.No.5599 of 2025, wherein this Court specifically directed as follows: <5. It is further stated that the comprehensive process, as stated supra requires considerable time; therefore, a period of six months was sought to comply with the required formalities and conduct elections to the 2nd respondent. 6. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to conduct elections within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.= 7 7. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that in view of mandatory direction of this Court, the 2nd respondent left with no other option except to proceed with the elections within the time stipulated by this Court. He further submits that the formulation of fresh tools for adopting voting method in the technology era requires so much of time, which includes issuance of notification, calling for objections and finalizing of the Rules. Therefore to save the time, the 2nd respondent after having discussions with all the stakeholders came to conclusion that for more transparent participation by all the members it is decided to adopt online voting method by framing instructions. Accordingly, respondent No.2 requested the election authority for framing election instructions to conduct online mode of voting and the same to be notified along with election notification. Hence, the respondent No.3, notified the instructions along with election notification. As such, the procedure of online voting was framed by way of instructions and the same were notified by respondent No.3 along with election notification who is an election authority. 8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that even though the voting procedure was framed by way of election instructions, the said instructions are known to all the electorate including petitioner, as such which may not cause any prejudice to the petitioner specifically. Therefore, for conducting the elections by 8 way of online voting may not be considered contrary to the law. He further submits that in compliance of the order of this Court, respondent authority has already been issued election notification and election schedule on 19.01.2026 and the exercise of franchise would be taken place within two or three days. At this juncture, filing of this Writ Petition by a general voter and trying to stall the elections is contrary to settled principle of law. 9. Learned Standing Counsel also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon?ble Apex Court in Mandeep Sing and Another Vs. Collector and others, wherein it is held as follows: <Be that as it may, a writ petition was filed challenging the letter dated 26.09.2024 of the Chief Election Officer and the reply to the said letter by the Assistant Registrar by which he was given a list of 11687 members and directed Chief Election Officer to invite the objections afresh. These two orders were challenged before the learned Single Judge that came to the conclusion that such an order could not have been passed once the election process was on and the writ petition was allowed and the order was set aside and quashed. Against the said order, after taking leave of the Court, writ appeal was filed by the appellant in which a detailed order was passed stating that more than five writ petitions have already been filed to stall the elections and the present exercise by the Chief Election Officer and the other officers is nothing but an 9 abuse of the process. The writ appeal was dismissed with the following observations: <10. The conduct of appellant No. 2 and the Chief Election Officer is not appreciable for postponing the entire election by writing a letter. The Assistant Registrar has further reopened the controversy in respect of the voter list by writing a letter, which also gave cause of action for filing these two writ appeals. This election has wasted so much valuable time of the High Court. Let the election process be completed on 03.11.2024 on the basis of the voter list of 11687 members of Shri Guru Singh Sabha. No fresh election programme is liable to be issued.= From the record, it is very clear that the election of Shri Guru Singh Sabha, which has to take place every year, subject to the Resolution of the General Body Meeting, has not taken place for the last more than 12 years. The last election was held in the year 2012. Now the election process has already started and the Notification had already been given and the election is to take place on November 7, 2024. The law is settled in such cases in view of judgments of this Court in <N.P.Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Others= reported in (1952) S.C.R.218 and Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, which is that when the election process has begun, no order should normally be passed by the courts interfering with the election. The logic being that, if in such election matters, an interference is made by the Courts, then in all likelihood, no election can take place 10 ever. The remedy, which is always available to the other side, is by way of an Election Petition or a Civil Suit, whatever the case may be, after the elections are over. In the present case also, we are of the opinion that both the writ petition and the writ appeal have been disposed of in accordance with law, as the logic of the court being that, once the elections have been notified, the Courts should not interfere with the matter. In these circumstances, we see absolutely no reason to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.= 10. Learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 submits that the elections to the respondent No.2 institution are conducting by the respondent No.3 herein pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.903 dated 12.12.2025. It is not the case, that the respondent No.2 is conducting elections without there being any procedure or with concrete instructions. In the absence of any statutory rules, even the instructions as framed by the election authority for conducting elections in peaceful and meaningful meaner are also valid and the authority can proceed with the conducting of elections in accordance with notified procedure or instructions. He further submits that the procedure of online voting is also notified and issued along with election notification to make known to all the members to exercise their franchise in transparent manner. 11 11. Heard the learned counsels for all the parties. Perused the material on record. The fact remains that this Court vide order dated 11.11.2025 directed respondent No.2 to conduct elections within a period of six weeks, even though, respondent No.2 requested six months to meet the exigencies to conduct elections. Once a mandatory direction was issued by this Court, it is the duty of respondent No.2 to conduct elections as directed. It is settled preposition of law that once an authority suffered an order from this Court, whether it may be right or wrong, but the authority concerned shall implement the order in terms of the order of the Court. It appears that in compliance of the orders of this Court, respondent No.2 through respondent No.3, who is an election authority who was appointed as per Rules, 1978, issued election notification/schedule on 19.01.2026. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once statutory Rules are only contemplating for ballot voting as well as postal voting, without there being any amendment to the rules, but conducting elections with other mode of exercising franchise much less through online mode is contrary to the Rules is some extent valid and tenable. But in view of the orders of this Court, framing of new rules or amending the existing rules are not possible at this juncture as contended by the 2nd respondent is also valid and sustainable. It is also observed that the competent election authority has adopted the procedure by way of instructions. It is settled law that 12 even instructions for conducting elections in peaceful and meaningful manner and to achieve the object of transparent and more participation are valid. The common order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the High Court of Madras as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the facts and circumstances in that writ petitions are not applicable in the present case in hand, much less the petitioner herein is not able to prove any prejudice or any bias or any malice in conducting elections by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is settled law in the absence of any such bias, malice, unfair, prejudice and partiality; once the notification was issued by election authority the same cannot be interfered. The said principle was reiterated time and again by the Hon?ble Apex Court, since from N.P. Ponnuswami vs. The Returning Officer, Namakhal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District and others1, and Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others2 and in the recent judgment rendered in Mandeep Singh and another vs. Collector and others as extracted supra. 12. In view of the reasons stated above and pursuant to the ratio laid down by the Hon?ble Apex Court time and again, once election notification/schedule was issued, the same cannot be interfered by way of Judicial Review. Hence, the judicial review cannot be exercised in the present circumstances. The core principle 1 (1952) S.C.R.218 2 (1978) 1 SCC 405 13 of democracy is also speaks that conducting elections is always better to keep quit without having elections, even though the said election is conducted with some defects. In view of the above reasons, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner lacks merits and contrary to the settled preposition of law as extracted supra. 13. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 04.02.2026 Note: C.C. by tomorrow B/o. TTPPSS 14 30 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3233/2026 04.02.2026 Note: C.C. by tomorrow B/o. TTPPSS