Kavitha’s Telangana Rakshana Sena defends party name, seeks personal hearing before ECI

Telangana Rakshana Sena (TRS), led by Kalvakuntla Kavitha, has submitted its response to the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the notice concerning the registration of the party and has sought a personal hearing before the Commission after copies of the objections against its proposed name are furnished.

In its response, the party questioned the procedure adopted by the ECI while dealing with objections to its name and urged the Commission to ensure a fair and transparent registration process.

The party claimed the name had already gained widespread public recognition through grassroots activities and administrative outreach and that changing the name at this stage would seriously disrupt its organisational work.

The response also pointed out that while the ECI’s communication dated June 23 referred to nearly 1,000 objections against the proposed name, copies of these objections had not been provided to the party to respond effectively.

The TRS maintained that the number of objections alone should not be the basis for rejecting a party name. It urged the Commission to examine the authenticity, uniqueness and legal merit of each objection to determine whether they were genuine or repetitive and politically motivated.

The reply said that no registered political party currently bears the name ‘Telangana Rakshana Sena’, and the words ‘Telangana’ and ‘Rakshana’ were generic and descriptive terms that could not be exclusively claimed by any organisation. It contended that its proposed name was not deceptively similar to any existing political party.

The party further argued that the registered names ‘Telangana Rakshana Samithi (Democratic)’ and ‘Telangana Rajya Samithi’ were distinct in composition, pronunciation, organisational identity and public perception.

It questioned how Telangana Rakshana Samithi was permitted to register in 2024 despite the prior registration of Telangana Rajya Samithi in 2023 if similarity alone was considered a valid ground for objection.

The TRS also cited several precedents and referred to several ‘Aam Aadmi’ variants, ‘Praja Sena/ Praja Seva’ variants and multiple registered versions of the Republican Party of India as examples to support its contention that similarity in nomenclature alone should not be grounds for denying registration.