The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that individual candidates who were allegedly prevented from filing nominations for the Andhra Pradesh urban local body elections could pursue election petitions to establish their claims, noting that the allegations involved disputed questions of fact. The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana also directed that CCTV recordings, in terms of its earlier orders, be preserved beyond the period of limitation so that they remain available for any subsequent legal proceedings.
Showing disapproval over broad allegations of nomination obstruction without specific instances of affected candidates, the CJI remarked:
“
“The level of politics in some of these states… Let us keep the courts away. We will issue necessary direction to the state election commission to ensure that fair and free election in a most transparent manner is conducted.”
The Court was hearing the petition filed by Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party. Previously, the court directed the State Election Commission (SEC) and the Director General of Police to submit compliance reports on measures taken to address complaints of obstruction and violence during the nomination process.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the YSRCP, submitted that a substantial number of opposition candidates had been unable to file their nomination papers. He referred to figures which, according to the party, showed that the proportion of constituencies in which candidates were elected unopposed remained high despite the extension of the nomination period in certain areas.
Responding to his submissions, the Bench expressed displeasure over attempts to politicise the proceedings and cautioned against turning the Court into a forum for broad political allegations. It emphasised that sweeping claims of obstruction would have to be backed by specific instances and that individual candidates alleging wrongful denial of nomination would have to pursue their grievances through election petitions, as the issues involved disputed questions of fact. CJI remarked:
“
“These sweeping statements are of no use. Tell us who is the particular candidate who went there and was deprived. Have you given any list? Your intentions are not to allow the election to be held. We are not going to be trapped like that. Otherwise, give the list of your candidates who wanted to file their nomination, who are not permitted. We cannot go into this nebulous area. However, if anyone feels that his valid claim was disputed, he would take out an election petition. This is a disputed question of fact.”
The hearing followed the Supreme Court’s October 21 order recognising that the ability to file nomination papers without obstruction is an essential component of free and fair elections. The Court had directed the SEC to examine complaints submitted by the YSRCP and individual candidates, along with supporting material, including video recordings, and determine whether nomination deadlines needed to be extended in places where candidates were unable to file their papers due to law-and-order problems.
The SEC was also directed to provide additional facilities for filing nominations at district headquarters wherever necessary. The DGP was asked to ensure adequate police deployment, CCTV coverage at nomination centres and protection for candidates approaching election offices.
During Tuesday’s hearing, the Bench discussed the steps taken following these directions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for SEC submitted that the nomination period had been extended in locations where difficulties were identified and that security had been provided to candidates who sought assistance. The Commission also stated that candidates whose representations were accepted had been allowed to file their nomination papers within the extended period. Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh, opposed the YSRCP’s plea alleging obstruction of candidates from filing nominations.
The YSRCP, however, continued to dispute the adequacy of the measures taken, arguing that several candidates remained unable to contest. The party referred to the number of candidates allegedly prevented from filing nominations and questioned whether the election process could be regarded as free and fair in the circumstances.
The Bench indicated that it would not allow general allegations to derail the election process and stressed the need for specific material identifying affected candidates. The court directed that CCTV recordings should be retained beyond the period of limitation so that they remain available if required in subsequent legal proceedings.
Background of the case
The dispute arises from the Andhra Pradesh SEC’s schedule for elections to urban local bodies. The YSRCP, the principal opposition party in the State, had approached the Supreme Court after the Andhra Pradesh High Court declined to grant a blanket extension of the nomination period. The party alleged that its candidates were threatened, assaulted or prevented from reaching nomination centres in several locations, including Punganur, Rayachoti, Kadapa and Tirupati.
The State and election authorities have disputed the allegations and submitted that appropriate measures were taken to address genuine complaints.
The Supreme Court’s October 21 order had reiterated that while courts ordinarily exercise restraint once an election process has commenced, judicial review is not entirely excluded where allegations of unlawful interference threaten the fairness of the process.