The Supreme Court told the Andhra Pradesh poll panel to examine YSRCP complaints. The directions underscore that secure nomination filing is integral to free and fair elections.
Newdelhi,Oct 21, 2026 20:10 IST
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission to defer publishing the final list of candidates for civic polls until October 25, news agency Press Trust of India reported. The court said, “Instilling confidence in the election process is vital for the maintenance of constitutional democracy.”
A vacation bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a petition filed by the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party, or YSRCP. The party alleged that violence and threats had prevented several of its candidates from filing nomination papers for elections to around 100 urban local bodies.
The bench directed the state election commission to consider complaints submitted by the YSRCP and other candidates, along with supporting material, and decide by Thursday whether to extend the nomination deadline. It also asked the commission to take all necessary steps to address concerns among the YSRCP and other candidates about free and fair elections in the state.
The court directed the Andhra Pradesh Director General of Police to provide adequate security to candidates and election offices. It observed that the filing of nomination papers was an essential part of free and fair elections.
The bench clarified that it was not directly intervening in the election process but was allowing the state election commission to consider the party's complaint and take an appropriate decision. It asked the commission to file a compliance affidavit by October 27, the next date of hearing.
According to PTI, the court said the YS Jagan Mohan Reddy-led party had “made out prima facie case” that several of its candidates had been stopped from filing nomination papers. The court referred to representations submitted by the party and its candidates, both physically and electronically, as well as video clips and other electronic evidence.
“Bearing in mind these principles and the materials placed before us, which include various representations made by the petitioner-party as well as the candidates before the SEC both physically and in electronic form, as well as electronic evidence in the form of video clippings, etc., we are of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for passing the directions,” the bench recorded in its order.
The court said constitutional courts would not ordinarily interfere with the election process, but could step in when necessary to prevent free and fair elections from being affected by unconstitutional or illegal means. “While the constitutional courts would not ordinarily interfere with the election process, their hands are not tied when appropriate interference is necessary to ensure that free and fair elections are not polluted by unconstitutional or illegal means,” it said.
“Free and fair election is a basic structure of the Constitution. The right to participate in such elections by filing nominations is a facet of the free and fair election process,” the bench said. It added that while the Constitution entrusted the state election commission with conducting and supervising elections, the courts retained the power to review actions to support the election process.
The bench said it was conscious that courts should respect the state election commission's authority to conduct elections. It said this approach was based on the need to entrust elections to an independent constitutional body and complete the process within a fixed timeline without prolonged court intervention.
At the same time, the court said constitutional courts were the custodians of constitutional values. Their power to ensure free and fair elections could not be entirely restricted when a principal opposition party approached the court with relevant material and raised serious concerns about candidates being prevented from filing nominations.
The YSRCP alleged that ruling party candidates were likely to be elected unopposed in around 19 urban local bodies because opposition candidates had been prevented from submitting nomination papers through violence and obstruction. The court said that if law and order affected fair and impartial elections, courts would have to uphold constitutional values.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the Andhra Pradesh government, opposed the YSRCP's petition. The party was represented by senior advocate Maninder Singh and advocate Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, PTI reported.
The YSRCP sought police protection for candidates, an extension of the nomination deadline, and additional or alternative nomination centres where candidates could safely submit their papers. Its petition, filed by general secretary Lella Appireddy, alleged that several candidates were assaulted and physically prevented from reaching nomination centres during the nomination period from October 16 to October 18.
The High Court had earlier dismissed the party's request for an extension, holding that the deadline had expired and that extending it would amount to interference in the election process. The Supreme Court has now asked the state election commission to examine the complaints, decide on a possible extension and withhold the final candidate list until October 25.
- Ends