Telangana High Court Denies Interim Relief in GHMC Expansion Challenge
The Telangana High Court on Monday declined to grant interim relief in petitions challenging the constitutional validity of two key legislative amendments: the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2026, and the Telangana Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2026. The court directed the state government to file a counter affidavit, setting the stage for a detailed legal examination of the controversial laws.
Expansion of GHMC Jurisdiction
The amendments in question merge 27 urban bodies and municipalities located within the Outer Ring Road limits into the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. This significant expansion dramatically increases GHMC's territorial jurisdiction, reshaping the administrative landscape of the Hyderabad metropolitan region. The restructuring represents one of the most substantial municipal reorganizations in recent Telangana history.
Court Proceedings and Timeline
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin presided over the hearing. The bench granted the state government three weeks to file its detailed counter affidavit. Following this, petitioners will have one additional week to submit their replies. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on March 24, 2026, providing all parties adequate time to prepare their legal arguments.
Petitioners' Constitutional Challenge
The petitions were filed by businessmen R Laxman and Rajamoni Raju from Tukkuguda municipality in Rangareddy district. They contend that the amendments fundamentally alter multiple aspects of local governance without following mandatory procedural safeguards. Their primary arguments include:
- The amendments change territorial jurisdiction, governance structure, and taxation framework without proper consultation
- The replacement of notification-based 'city' designation with 'core urban region' (CURE) led to automatic inclusion of municipalities without institutional consultation
- The restructuring bypasses participatory governance requirements, which they term a 'statutory bypass'
Senior counsel L Ravichander, representing the petitioners, argued that Article 243Q of the Constitution mandates specific procedures for altering municipal corporation status, including the requirement for a governor's notification preceding any such changes.
State Government's Defense
Advocate General A Sudershan Reddy, representing the Telangana state government, presented the state's preliminary defense. He argued that legislation cannot be challenged merely on procedural grounds in the absence of a clear constitutional violation. Reddy further submitted that challenging a government order (GO) and challenging a statute stand on different legal footing, requiring distinct legal approaches. The advocate general requested additional time to prepare a comprehensive counter addressing all constitutional and legal aspects of the challenge.
Legal Implications and Next Steps
The court's decision to deny interim relief while allowing time for detailed counters suggests a measured approach to this constitutional challenge. By recording all submissions and issuing directions accordingly, the bench has established a clear procedural framework for resolving this significant legal dispute. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for municipal governance, urban planning, and constitutional interpretation in Telangana.
The case represents a critical test of how state governments can restructure municipal boundaries and governance frameworks while maintaining constitutional compliance. As Hyderabad continues to expand and urbanize, the legal principles established in this case may influence future municipal reorganizations across India.
