The Supreme Court has left the first decision to the State Election Commission but set a clock: in the Andhra Municipal Polls dispute, the YSRCP’s complaints of violence and obstruction must be examined by October 22, and the final list of candidates stays on hold until October 25.
New Delhi: Directing the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission to examine by October 22 the complaints of the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) that violence and obstruction kept its candidates from filing nominations for the Urban Local Body elections, the Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 21, deferred publication of the final list of candidates until October 25. It refused a blanket extension of the nomination deadline [YSRCP v. State Election Commission and Others].
The Bench comprised Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the State of Andhra Pradesh, Counsel Parmeshwar for the State Election Commission, and Advocate Singh along with senior counsel for the YSRCP. The Bench heard the matter at length before dictating its order in open court and listed it next on October 27. The allegations of violence below are those of the parties and have not been tested by any court; the Court has left each complaint to the Commission.
Case by case, not a blanket extension
Justice Bagchi said that candidates of any party who could show that they had approached the authority by October 16 but were unable to file because of violence could be given liberty to place documents before it, and the authority could then consider withholding the process or extending the deadline. He was explicit that the date would not move across the board:
“We will not pass a blanket order shifting the date. The election authority will decide case by case, based on the material each prospective candidate provides.”
The judge pointed out that polling is fixed for October 28 and that the final list of candidates had not yet been published. If the authority took a contrary view, that decision could be examined in an election petition, and a person prevented from filing a nomination could be treated as having faced a “deemed rejection”.
The YSRCP’s case in Court
Senior counsel for the YSRCP said that two-thirds of the party’s candidates had been prevented from filing nominations. Advocate Singh later gave the figure as 63.5%, said contempt notices had been issued over non-compliance with police protection orders, and claimed that video clips on record showed nomination papers being torn.
The Bench then turned to the data. Justice Bagchi noted that around 100 ULBs were going to the polls, whereas the material placed before the Court concerned 272 nominations across 19 wards, and remarked:
“When we discuss numbers, we must be clear. You have given only a snippet of the data. Logic is more convincing than emotions.”
Police protection, and the deadline
Early in the hearing, Justice Bagchi said police protection and support were “fine”, but that on the deadline the Court would only ask the authority to reconsider. Counsel Parmeshwar urged that no mandamus be issued, and the judge replied that the Court would not pass one because it did not wish to interfere with the election process.
On the additional compilation of alleged incidents, Justice Bagchi observed that the rules allowed an extension of up to six days and that the authority “could have easily given them extension.” Justice V. Mohana added that “a meaningful consideration was required.”
What the State Election Commission said
For the State Election Commission, Parmeshwar read out the High Court’s directions on CCTV cameras, police protection and free and fair elections, and said action had been put on hold in certain instances on October 19. The Court, he submitted, should not act on one political party’s assertions based on media reports. He called the litigation “an attempt to stall the elections”, noting that the writ before the High Court was filed on October 10 and kept pending until October 13, and that no individual candidate had complained before the Single Judge.
Justice Mohana said the Court had complete faith in the system, but asked whether directions to the police alone were enough if violations had occurred, observing that the applications “have been pending for days with you.”
The State’s reply: no complaints, and violence on all sides
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, for Andhra Pradesh, said that the Single Judge’s order of October 15 recorded no allegation of violence, that the party and not individual candidates had approached the authorities, and that no one had come back saying they were obstructed after police protection was granted on October 16. He also referred to a video which, he said, showed a candidate driving over people.
Justice Bagchi said the Court had to uphold the constitutional value of free and fair elections and understood there were allegations of violence involving all parties. Justice Mohana remarked that the material pointed to one thing: “it is not safe, irrespective of the party involved.” Asked how many police complaints had been lodged on the seven affidavits annexed, Mr Luthra said: “None.”
To the State’s point that protection had already been granted, Justice Bagchi said the Court had to see “whether the protection actually worked or remained on paper”, while adding that the Court “will not allow judicial proceedings to become a platform for canvassing.”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also for the State, submitted that the petitioners were “not interested in elections” and that the case was a media narrative. Justice Bagchi responded that there must be a level playing field: “Make it an honourable contest.”
Why the Bench wanted the Commission to decide first
When Advocate Singh placed further material before the Court, Justice Bagchi said the party should have made a representation to the local election authority or approached the Commission online, and asked it to take all the documents to the election authority, which would take a decision. Singh replied that the relief had to be general, that the party could not be asked to submit data, and that its case was stronger than the Punjab case because the writ petition had been filed beforehand.
Justice Bagchi rejected the suggestion that the Court was powerless, but said the scheme placed the first decision with the State Election Commission:
“We do not agree that the Court’s hands are tied. But the constitutional scheme requires the State Election Commission to decide first. If it has not decided, we will hold it to that responsibility. You are putting the cart before the horse.”
The judge said that if the Court recorded that it had seen the videos and found violence, it would pre-empt the Commission’s decision. He indicated that the Bench would ask the Commission not to publish the final list of candidates for any constituency before October 23 and to decide that very day whether to extend the deadline, adding that an adverse decision could be challenged as an illegal rejection of nomination.
Singh cited a Maharashtra matter in which, he said, the High Court refused to leave the issue to the State Election Commission despite a jurisdiction objection. Justice Bagchi said this was “not about winning or losing” and that the Maharashtra case concerned an ex facie rejection or disqualification, which was different.
Singh asked the Court to consider October 26 instead of October 23 and sought liberty to return if the directions did not translate into relief. Mr Luthra countered that in Tirupati the candidate had filed a nomination anyway and accused the party of being selective, to which Justice Mohana said the issue “may not concern just one ward.”
As the order was dictated
The Bench then began dictating its order. It recorded that before the election notification the YSRCP had approached the High Court alleging widespread violence and seeking alternative filing arrangements at district headquarters; that the Single Judge dismissed the plea as premature; and that the Division Bench dismissed the interim application in appeal, holding that the relief went beyond the writ petition, the Commission’s decision was not on record and the nomination deadline had expired.
The order notes the YSRCP’s case that violence prevented 63% of its candidates from filing in 19 of the 600 urban local bodies and that the Commission’s October 16 and 19 directions on police protection and CCTV coverage were not followed. It records the Commission’s denial, its statement that the DGP was told to ensure strict compliance and that polls were postponed in some places, and the State’s allegation, through Mr Luthra, that the party had not come with clean hands and was itself engineering violence. These rival allegations remain untested. The Court then set out the principle:
“Free and fair elections form part of the basic structure. The right to participate is a facet of free and fair elections.”
The Bench added that the Commission’s constitutional duty includes ensuring that candidates can file nominations freely and transparently, and that the power of judicial review, though exercised with deference, cannot be rendered ineffective. The operative directions were still being dictated at the time of writing.
The operative directions: a decision by October 22, the final list held till October 25
When dictation concluded, the Bench granted relief to the YSRCP. It held that free and fair elections are part of the Constitution’s basic structure and that the right to file nominations is part of that guarantee. Judicial review in election matters may be deferential, the Court said, but it cannot be wholly muted, and judicial deference cannot leave constitutional courts powerless when free and fair elections are at stake.
The State Election Commission has been directed to examine, by October 22, the complaints of violence and obstruction, including the representations and electronic evidence placed before it, and to decide where the nomination deadline needs to be extended. Wherever an extension is granted, candidates are to get at least 48 hours from the publication of that decision. Publication of the final list of candidates stands deferred until October 25, later than the October 23 date the Bench had floated during the hearing.
The Director General of Police must ensure police protection, CCTV coverage and compliance with the directions. The Court has sought compliance reports and will hear the matter next on October 27, a day before polling on October 28. The rival allegations of violence made by the YSRCP and the State remain untested, and the directions leave the decision on each complaint to the Commission.
How the dispute reached the Supreme Court
Nominations for the Urban Local Body elections were open from October 16 to October 18, 2026. On October 15, a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court declined the omnibus relief sought by the YSRCP and left individual candidates free to approach the Election Officers concerned. On October 18, the High Court refused to extend the nomination window, holding that it could not interfere with an election process already under way. The YSRCP then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, seeking police protection, an extension of the deadline, alternative nomination centres and a stay on declaring candidates elected unopposed in affected wards.
Under Article 243ZG of the Constitution, a municipal election can be called in question only through an election petition before the authority prescribed by State law. Courts commonly cite that bar when asked to alter an election timetable midway, and it framed much of Wednesday’s exchange.
Case Title: YSRCP v. State Election Commission and Others (Special Leave Petition against the Andhra Pradesh High Court order of October 18, 2026)
Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Date of order: October 21, 2026
Next hearing: October 27, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Siddharth Luthra and Mukul Rohatgi for the State of Andhra Pradesh; Counsel Parmeshwar for the State Election Commission; Advocate Singh and senior counsel for the YSRCP