GHMC Ward Delimitation Petition Set for April 30 Hearing as High Court Censures State Inaction

Hyderabad's High Court has scheduled the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) ward delimitation petition for hearing on April 30, expressing frustration over persistent delays in the State's compliance with court directives.

The case challenges the ward delimitation framework for GHMC elections. Advocate Muzaffer Ullah Khan initiated the petition, with Advocate Barkat Ali Khan representing the matter in court proceedings.

At the April 22 hearing, the division bench expressed concern about the State's failure to file its counter-affidavit within stipulated timelines. The court imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 and announced that any future delayed submissions would only be entertained upon payment to the Telangana Legal Services Authority. The bench also granted what it termed a final opportunity to respond.

During the proceedings, Barkat Ali Khan highlighted contradictory positions taken by respondent No.5 across different submissions. One submission contended that fresh delimitation could only occur following the 2026 Census, invoking the existing framework established under Government Order Ms. No.166 dated November 19, 2015. Simultaneously, another submission referenced Government Order Ms. No.266 dated December 8, 2025, which increased the number of elected members from 150 to 300 and claimed that delimitation had already been concluded. Khan argued that these conflicting positions reflected administrative arbitrariness and insufficient transparency.

The petitioner also raised concerns regarding alleged violations of Government Order Ms. No.570 dated November 6, 1996, issued under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955. He cautioned that proceeding with elections based on the current ward boundaries could result in flawed electoral outcomes.

The bench noted that the State had consistently failed to submit its counter despite receiving multiple adjournments since September 1, 2025. Extensions had been granted in October and December, followed by an additional 10-day grace period, yet compliance remained incomplete.

Respondent No.5 eventually filed its response, though respondent No.6—the department overseeing the delimitation process—did not submit its counter. The Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.6 requested additional time, citing a recent assumption of the case. The court acceded to this request, setting April 28 as the new deadline while warning that non-compliance would necessitate the Principal Secretary's personal appearance.

Khan filed an interlocutory application seeking complete ward-wise delimitation data and requesting time to file objections. He additionally petitioned the court to prevent authorities from issuing an election notification pending the case resolution.

The court will reconvene on April 30 to assess compliance with its orders and determine the next course of action.