Telangana HC seeks replies on plea challenging GHMC trifurcation
HYDERABAD: The Telangana high court on Thursday sought detailed responses from the state and central governments on a petition challenging the proposed division of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) into three entities.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin directed both governments to file counter-affidavits within three weeks. The petitioner was granted an additional week to file a rejoinder. The matter has been posted for further hearing on March 25.
Petitioner cites 2025 Census circular
The petition was filed by city-based businessman D Gurava Reddy. He contended that the proposed reorganisation violates a jurisdictional freeze imposed by the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India in August 2025 in preparation for Census 2027.
According to the plea, once such a freeze is imposed for Census purposes, the state government cannot alter municipal boundaries until the exercise is completed.
Citing the Census Commissioner’s circular, counsel for the petitioner Rajkumar Gummi submitted that the freeze covers all jurisdictional changes, including the creation of new districts, modification of town limits and de-notification of sub-districts.
He argued that the merger of 27 urban local bodies into GHMC and the subsequent division into 300 wards took place during the freeze period, which he said extended till December 31, 2025.
The counsel further contended that the February 11 government order splitting GHMC into three commissionerates GHMC, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation and Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation violated the requirement that such changes be communicated to the Census Commissioner by January 10, 2026.
Advocate general seeks dismissal
Appearing for the state, advocate general A Sudarshan Reddy argued that the relevant freeze date should technically be March 1, 2026, one year before the Census reference date of March 1, 2027.
“The Census will proceed based on the status as of March 1. The division does not nullify the change or make it illegal,” he submitted, adding that the reorganisation does not violate any constitutional provisions.
The court noted that Census operations were unlikely to be affected at this stage and adjourned the case pending submission of responses.
