Hyderabad: Observing that the allegations made against Jubilee Hills BRS MLA Maganti Gopinath involve serious claims of electoral irregularities, including the illegal replacement of electronic voting machines (EVMs), Justice K Lakshman of the Telangana high court has dismissed an interlocutory application filed by the MLA seeking to strike down the election petition filed by Mohammed Azharuddin, the Congress candidate who contested and lost the 2023 assembly election from the constituency.The interim application, filed by Gopinath, contended that Azharuddin’s plea lacked merit and should be dismissed at the outset. However, the court declined to do so, holding that the issues raised warranted a separate and detailed trial.Justice Lakshman observed that the allegations made in the petition are triable in nature, supported by documentary evidence, and cannot be dismissed at the threshold without a proper adjudication of facts.In his plea, Azharuddin alleged multiple electoral malpractices, including malfunctioning and unauthorised replacement of EVMs, mismatched serial numbers between the EVMs and form 17C (which records votes polled), and tampering or missing seals in 26 machines.He further contended that despite written complaints dated Dec 3, 2023, and Jan 2, 2024, the returning officer failed to initiate any corrective measures. The petition was accompanied by supporting documents, including gazette notifications, form 26, and lists of defective EVMs.Gopinath, on his part, argued that Azharuddin had failed to identify specific polling booths or machines where irregularities occurred. However, the court disagreed, noting that the allegations were not vague and required factual determination through a full trial.It is worth noting that the high court had earlier dismissed Azharuddin’s petition on Sept 18, 2024, but the Supreme Court, upon appeal, set aside the order on March 19, 2025, and remitted the case back for fresh consideration.Justice Lakshman further referenced an election petition filed by a voter, V Naveen Yadav, which alleged suppression of material facts—specifically, marital status and educational qualifications—by the BRS MLA. While those issues are not part of Azharuddin’s petition, the court acknowledged their relevance to a separate ongoing case.Relying on legal precedents, including Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali and Mangani Lal Mandal vs Bishnu Deo Bhandari, the court reaffirmed that, at the preliminary stage, it must assess only the pleadings and documents submitted with the petition to determine whether the matter deserves to proceed.In conclusion, the court ruled that Azharuddin’s petition discloses a valid cause of action and raises substantive questions of fact and law that cannot be disposed of summarily. A full-fledged trial will now follow to examine the veracity of the claims made.