The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission (SEC) to consider extending the deadline for filing nominations in urban local body elections wherever candidates were allegedly prevented from filing their papers due to law-and-order issues.
A Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the directions while hearing a plea filed by the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP), challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s October 18 order refusing to extend the nomination deadline.
The Court directed the SEC to defer publication of the final list of candidates until October 25, 2026, and consider representations submitted by the party and candidates, along with supporting material, including video clips and other electronic evidence. The Commission must decide by October 26 whether the deadline should be extended in affected urban local bodies.
The YSRCP alleged that violence, intimidation and obstruction prevented its candidates from filing nominations during the three-day nomination window from October 16 to 18. The party cited incidents in Punganur, Rayachoti, Kadapa and Tirupati, alleging that nomination papers were snatched or torn and that some candidates were prevented from reaching the offices of Returning Officers.
The party also sought police protection for its candidates, additional or alternative nomination centres and a stay on the declaration of candidates as elected unopposed in affected wards. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had earlier declined to extend the nomination period, holding that the deadline had expired and that such intervention would interfere with the election process.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP), alleged that violence and intimidation had prevented several party candidates from filing their nomination papers. Referring to video clips and other material, he told the Bench that vehicles had been burnt, an MP’s staff had been assaulted and nomination papers had been torn. He questioned how candidates could produce evidence when their completed nomination forms were allegedly destroyed or they were prevented from entering the nomination centres.
In response, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the Andhra Pradesh State Government, alleged that YSRCP members themselves had perpetrated violence and claimed that people had arrived from Punjab with weapons. Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing for the State Election Commission (SEC), submitted that police-protection orders had already been issued and complied with, while assuring the Court that the Commission would act on credible complaints.
‘Power of judicial review cannot be wholly muted’
The Supreme Court observed that the power of judicial review could not be entirely curtailed where concerns had been raised about candidates’ ability to participate in elections by filing nomination papers. The Bench observed:
“
“The power of judicial review to ensure a fair and impartial free election through filing of nomination papers cannot be wholly muted when the principal opposition political party in the State is before us and has placed on record materials as representations and materials even prior to the filing or even prior to the commencement of election process expressing serious apprehension with regard to hindrance in participation in the election through filing nomination papers.”
The Court emphasised that confidence in the electoral process is essential for constitutional democracy and the rule of law. It noted that the material before it included representations made by the petitioner party and candidates to the SEC, along with video clips and other electronic evidence.
Referring to the limits of judicial restraint in election matters, the Bench further observed:
“
“Constitutional courts would ordinarily not interfere with election process, but their hands are not tied when appropriate interventions are necessary for ensuring that free and fair election is not polluted by unconstitutional or illegal means.”
The Court clarified that the SEC must examine the available material and determine whether candidates were unable to file their nominations because of law-and-order situations. The directions do not amount to a finding that the allegations of obstruction have been established.
Any extension to provide at least 48 hours
The Court directed that wherever the SEC decides to extend the nomination deadline, the extended period must be not less than 48 hours from the publication of its decision, with the election notification amended accordingly.
The Bench also directed the Director General of Police to take necessary steps to ensure adequate police deployment and CCTV coverage at nomination centres and election offices, and to provide protection to candidates arriving to file their papers.
The SEC was further directed to issue appropriate orders to address apprehensions among the petitioner party, intending candidates and other stakeholders, ensuring a fair opportunity to participate in the election process.
The Commission must file a compliance report before the Supreme Court. The matter has been listed for further consideration on October 27, 2026.