Odisha moves Supreme Court against Andhra Pradesh over rural poll notice in Kotia area

Andhra Pradesh notified local elections in parts of Kotia, a region Odisha considers its territory. The notification covers Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections. Odisha challenged the move because the area remains under a long-running territorial dispute. The issue matters because elections can establish which State exercises practical local authority.

The disputed villages include Phagunasineri, Ganjeipadar, and Phatusineri. Odisha says all 28 villages of Kotia Gram Panchayat lie in Odisha, while Andhra Pradesh claims 21 of them. Odisha argues that Andhra Pradesh’s election notification changes the existing position. It has relied on the Supreme Court’s 2006 direction that both States maintain the status quo.

Odisha filed a contempt petition through the Koraput district collector, after receiving approval from Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi. It wants the Supreme Court to stop what it calls illegal activities and prevent similar actions in future. The petition also names officials involved in managing the proposed elections.

Kotia Gram Panchayat is the local administrative unit at the centre of the Odisha-Andhra Pradesh border dispute. It comprises 28 villages in Koraput district, according to the article. Odisha treats the entire panchayat as part of its territory. The disagreement matters because both States seek authority over local administration in the same villages.

The central dispute concerns 21 of the 28 villages. Andhra Pradesh has claimed rights over them, while Odisha has challenged that claim. The article identifies Phagunasineri, Ganjeipadar, and Phatusineri as villages where Andhra Pradesh has again notified local body elections. These actions have repeatedly created tension between the two State administrations.

Odisha first challenged Andhra Pradesh’s claim in the Supreme Court in 1968. In 2006, the court directed both States to maintain the status quo. Odisha now says Andhra Pradesh’s election notification breaches that position and has asked the court to intervene again.

The Kotia Gram Panchayat contains 28 villages. This figure describes the full local administrative unit involved in the dispute. Odisha maintains that all 28 villages are located in its territory. The number matters because the disagreement is not limited to a single settlement; it affects most of the panchayat.

Andhra Pradesh claims rights over 21 of those 28 villages. The article names Phagunasineri, Ganjeipadar, and Phatusineri among the disputed villages where Andhra Pradesh has notified local elections. In 1968, Odisha challenged the broader claim in the Supreme Court. The dispute has therefore continued for decades.

The 2006 Supreme Court order required both States to maintain the status quo. Odisha says Andhra Pradesh’s latest election notification breaches that arrangement. The State has responded with a contempt petition and says it will seek directions preventing similar activities in the future.

The Supreme Court’s 2006 direction to maintain the status quo meant that Odisha and Andhra Pradesh had to preserve the existing position in Kotia while the dispute remained unresolved. The article does not detail every administrative restriction. However, Odisha relies on the order to argue that neither State should take steps that alter practical control in the disputed area.

That is why Odisha objects to Andhra Pradesh’s election notification. Holding Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections would place a formal local electoral process in villages Odisha says are its territory. Odisha views that step as inconsistent with leaving the situation unchanged. A similar confrontation arose when Andhra Pradesh held panchayat polls in the disputed region in 2021.

Odisha filed a contempt petition in 2022 after those earlier polls and has filed another petition over the latest notification. It asks the Supreme Court to direct Andhra Pradesh to stop such activities in future. The court’s response will determine the next legal step.

Odisha filed the contempt petition because it says Andhra Pradesh violated the Supreme Court’s 2006 direction to maintain the status quo. The immediate trigger was Andhra Pradesh’s October 10 notification for Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections in the disputed Kotia area. Odisha says conducting those elections would amount to an unlawful administrative step in territory it claims.

The petition was filed through the Koraput district collector after approval from Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi. Odisha has made several Andhra Pradesh officials parties to the matter. They include the State Election Commissioner, the Chief Secretary, the Collector of the concerned district, and other officers involved in managing the elections.

Odisha also plans to ask the Supreme Court for directions stopping Andhra Pradesh from taking similar steps in future. The case follows an earlier dispute after Andhra Pradesh held panchayat polls in Kotia in 2021. Odisha filed a contempt petition over that episode in 2022.

Holding local elections could change who exercises day-to-day administrative authority in the disputed villages. Elected bodies created through Andhra Pradesh’s process could begin functioning as part of its local-government system. Odisha argues that this would not be a neutral event because the villages are in territory it claims and because the Supreme Court ordered both States to maintain the status quo.

The latest notification covers Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti elections in Phagunasineri, Ganjeipadar, and Phatusineri. Such elections would give Andhra Pradesh an organised local structure in those villages. The article does not say that the elections have already taken place. It records only the notification and Odisha’s legal challenge.

The wider dispute shows how elections can turn a territorial claim into practical administration. Andhra Pradesh also held panchayat polls in the disputed region in 2021, prompting Odisha to file a contempt petition in 2022. Odisha now seeks orders stopping future similar activities.

Indian State boundaries are legally established through the Constitution and relevant laws. Parliament can create or alter States and their boundaries through the constitutional process. When governments disagree about territory or legal authority, the Supreme Court can hear the dispute between them and interpret the applicable law. This framework is broader than the specific details provided in the article.

The article records that Odisha challenged Andhra Pradesh’s claim in the Supreme Court in 1968. In 2006, the court directed both States to maintain the status quo. That order did not settle the competing claims in the account provided. Instead, it controlled how the States were to act while the dispute continued. Odisha now says Andhra Pradesh’s election notification breached that direction.

The court can examine the contempt allegation, decide whether its order was disobeyed, and issue further directions. Odisha says it will ask the court to stop similar activities in future. The final legal position on the territory is not stated in the article.