The Telangana High Court directed the State of Telangana to consider the nomination of a Shia Muslim community member in the Telangana Legislative Council under the Governor’s quota for the upliftment of their community as prescribed under Article 171(5) of the Constitution.

The Shia Civil Council for Social Justice (Council) addressed the financial and equal opportunity challenges faced by the Shia community across India. They claimed that despite promises from political leaders during elections, the communities lacked representation in government bodies.

A Single Bench of Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed, “In view of the settled legal position, this Court cannot direct the 5th respondent – Personal Secretary to the Governor to consider the letter impugned…However, as petitioners are also stated to have submitted the said letter to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, keeping in view the directions issued by this Court in earlier Writ Petition No. 7241 of 2023 and also percentage of population of Shia community, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the letter.

Advocate Venkata Raghu Mannepalli represented the petitioners, while AG A. Sudarshan Reddy appeared for the respondents.

The Council submitted a representation to the Government of Telangana and the Governor, urging consideration of a community member's candidature for the State Legislative Council outlining his ability to communicate effectively and promote the values of the Shia community peacefully.

The Council sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution “to look into the socio-economic, political and educational poor conditions of shia community and do the needful by nominating a Shia Muslim community member in Telangana Legislative Council under Governor’s quota for the upliftment of their community, thus fulfilling the objectives and enactment of Article 171(5) of the Constitution which prescribes that members to be nominated by the Governor.

However, the Court pointed out the Supreme Court’s five-judge bench decision in Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1 where it was held that a Court cannot implead or issue notices to the President or the Governor as they are not answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of their powers and duties, as Article 361 of the Constitution confers immunity to the President and the Governor.

The Court explained that it could not direct the Governor to consider a letter, but since the same was also submitted to the Chief Minister of the State, the Court directed the State to consider the representation made by the Council.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.

Cause Title: Syed Hyder Raza Naqvi & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors.


Petitioners: Advocate Venkata Raghu Mannepalli

Respondents: AG A. Sudarshan Reddy; DSG Gadi Praveen Kumar

Click here to read/download the Order