Hyderabad High Court Case on TSMC Elections
While considering the pleas challenging the Government Order on conducting elections for Telangana Medical Council (TSMC) after lowering the number of elected representatives, the High Court of Telangana has directed the State Government and the counsel for the petitioner to submit a compilation of previous Supreme Court and various High Court judgments.
The HC division bench led by Chief Justice Bhuyan and Justice C Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy was considering three separate petitions by Dr. B Arundati and others.
Issuing the Government Order for conducting elections, TSMC lowered the number of elected representatives. The counsel for the petitioner informed the bench that AP Medical Council elections were not held because electoral registers had not been prepared.
Meanwhile, the five-year term for AP Medical Council ended on January 2, 2012, and thereafter a governing body had been nominated for a one-year term or till elections. In this regard, a Government Order had been issued on December 28, 2012, and consequently, the term of the governing body was extended from time to time.
After the split of Telangana from the state of Andhra Pradesh, the Telangana Government issued another order (GO 15) on January 1, 2016. In this GO, the State had noted that it thought it to be essential as a stopgap measure.
Related Articles
As per the latest media report by the New Indian Express, the counsel for the petitioner also claimed that while the electoral rolls are available, the number of elected members decreased from 13 to five. However, the number of nominated members remained the same i.e. six. Due to this, nominated members became the chairman as the number of nominated members is more.
Referring to this, the counsel for the petitioner alleged that the State Government was interfering with the independence of the State Medical Council by reducing the number of elected members.
On the other hand, the counsel for the State informed the court that the State was ready to hold the elections. He also argued that it was mandatory for the Council to accommodate teaching staff, women candidates, and other reserved candidates. Therefore, the State Counsel argued that due to this reason, the State has not lowered the number of nominated members.
Taking note of the submissions by both parties, the HC division bench first delayed the polls and also urged the Government for defending the GO. Further, the petitioner's counsel and the State Government have been directed by the Court to submit a compilation of previous orders issued by the Supreme Court and the High Courts in this regard.
0 Comments
Post a comment
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!