SC tells Andhra SEC to hold final candidate list for local body polls until Oct 25

The Supreme Court on October 21 directed the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission (SEC) to make a decision by October 22 on the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party’s (YSRCP) request to extend the nomination deadline for urban local body elections in areas where candidates were allegedly prevented from filing their papers due to violence.

A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said the SEC should consider representations submitted by the party and its candidates, including video clips of the alleged incidents, and decide whether an extension was warranted in specific areas. If the SEC decides to extend the deadline, the additional time must be 48 hours from the publication of its decision.

The bench also directed the SEC to defer publication of the final list of candidates, originally scheduled for October 21, until October 25. It directed the Director General of Police to ensure adequate protection for candidates, police deployment and CCTV coverage at nomination centres.

The court will hear the matter again on October 27, by which date the SEC and the Andhra Pradesh government must file compliance affidavits.

The YSRCP had approached the Supreme Court challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s October 18 order refusing to extend the nomination period by a day. The party alleged that several of its candidates were assaulted, threatened or prevented from reaching nomination centres during the nomination period, which ran from October 16 to October 18.

In its observations, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of protecting candidates’ ability to participate in elections, while acknowledging the SEC’s constitutional authority to conduct and supervise the electoral process.

“Free and fair election is a basic structure of the Constitution. Right to participate in such elections by filing nominations is a facet of a free and fair election process,” the bench observed.

The court said that although constitutional courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in an ongoing election process, judicial review cannot be entirely excluded when intervention is necessary to protect free and fair elections.

The bench observed that the SEC’s role as an independent constitutional authority required courts to exercise restraint but said that this did not mean they were powerless when the electoral process was allegedly being undermined.

“Instilling confidence in the election process is vital for the maintenance of constitutional democracy,” the bench said.

It added that constitutional courts could intervene when necessary to ensure that elections were not “polluted by unconstitutional or illegal means”.

The bench said it had considered the representations made by the YSRCP and its candidates to the SEC, along with electronic evidence, including video clips, before concluding that the party had made out a prima facie case for directions.

According to a Live Law report, senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the YSRCP, told the bench that nearly two-thirds of the party’s candidates had been prevented from filing nominations. He referred to alleged incidents of violence, including vehicles being burnt, an MP’s staff being assaulted and nomination papers being torn.

“These are video clippings I want to show to Your Lordships,” Singh said.

He alleged that candidates were prevented from entering nomination centres and that completed nomination papers were destroyed. “How do I give evidence for a ward where the form is torn out with my documents? I have got the video. The video clipping is here,” he submitted.

Justice Bagchi responded that candidates affected by such incidents should have approached the election officers and the police with their complaints. The bench, however, directed the SEC to examine the allegations and decide whether the nomination deadline should be extended in areas where candidates were unable to file their papers because of violence.

Singh argued that the alleged obstruction could result in candidates from the ruling party being elected unopposed in a substantial number of constituencies. He also submitted that the YSRCP had raised concerns about possible violence before the election notification and that the police had responded selectively to its complaints.

Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, appearing for the SEC, argued that the conduct of elections fell within the Commission’s exclusive domain and opposed the court issuing a direction to extend the deadline.

Justice Bagchi said the court did not intend to interfere directly with the election process but pointed to the Commission’s own recognition of law-and-order concerns, including its decision to order police protection and put the election process on hold in Mydukur municipality.

“They made the prayer on the 16th. As per the rules, you can extend the date by six days from the date of notification, which is the 14th. So you could have easily given at least till the 20th," Justice Bagchi told the SEC’s counsel.

Parameshwar submitted that the YSRCP had filed its writ petition on October 10 but had not sought an extension when the matter was heard on October 15. He also said the SEC had already ordered additional security where there was a genuine apprehension of violence.

Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Andhra Pradesh government, opposed the YSRCP’s plea. Luthra argued that the situation was not as simple as the party had portrayed it and accused the YSRCP of bringing people from Punjab to create violence. Rohatgi argued that the party was attempting to manufacture a media narrative rather than genuinely contest the elections.

The YSRCP denied these allegations and maintained that its candidates had been prevented from exercising their right to contest.

The YSRCP, led by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, filed a special leave petition through its general secretary Lella Appireddy, challenging the High Court’s refusal to extend the nomination deadline. Advocate-on-Record Mahfooz A Nazki filed the petition.

The party alleged that incidents of violence and intimidation occurred in Punganur, Rayachoti, Kadapa and Tirupati during the nomination process. It claimed that a candidate’s nomination papers were snatched and torn in Kadapa and that nine candidates contesting the Tirupati Municipal Corporation elections were prevented from entering the offices of the returning officers. The petition also cited an alleged attack on the convoy of YSRCP MP P V Midhun Reddy while he was accompanying candidates to file their nominations.

Before approaching the Supreme Court, the party had moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking additional nomination centres at district headquarters and protection for its candidates. 

A single judge declined to grant the broader relief on October 15, allowing individual candidates to approach the relevant election officers. The High Court subsequently rejected the request to extend the nomination deadline, holding that the deadline had expired and that an extension could interfere with the election schedule.

The YSRCP argued before the Supreme Court that judicial restraint in election matters was not an absolute bar on intervention when candidates were allegedly prevented from contesting. It sought police protection, additional or alternative nomination centres, an extension of the deadline and a stay on declarations of candidates as elected unopposed in the affected wards.

The urban local body elections in Andhra Pradesh are scheduled for October 28, with counting scheduled for October 30.