The Supreme Court has said that the YSRCP nomination claims, the allegations that candidates were stopped from filing papers in Andhra Pradesh’s urban local body elections, raise disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated at this stage, and that anyone wrongly excluded may pursue an election petition.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 27, declined to adjudicate the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party’s (YSRCP) allegations that its candidates were prevented from filing nominations for the Andhra Pradesh Urban Local Body elections, noting that the State Election Commission has already considered representations and extended nomination deadlines in certain cases, and indicating that those who claim wrongful exclusion may pursue election petitions [YSRCP v. State Election Commission and Others].
The hearing was led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and included Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State Election Commission, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra for the State, and Senior Advocate Maninder Singh pressed the case that a list of persons prevented from filing nominations was already on record. The written order was not available at the time of writing, and this report is based on the hearing in open court. The allegations of violence made by the YSRCP, and the State’s counter-allegations, are contentions of the parties and have not been tested by any court.
How the case reached here
The YSRCP moved the Supreme Court by a Special Leave Petition against an October 18 order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court refusing to extend the nomination deadline for the Urban Local Body elections. It alleged that violence in places such as Punganur, Rayachoti, Kadapa and Tirupati stopped its candidates from reaching nomination centres and sought police protection, more time and a hold on candidates being declared elected unopposed. The State and the Election Commission denied that the process had been obstructed and told the Court that police protection and CCTV coverage had been directed and that the litigation was an attempt to stall the elections.
On October 21, the Court held that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure and directed the State Election Commission to examine the complaints and representations by October 22, to extend the nomination window where law and order problems had prevented filing, to give aggrieved candidates at least 48 hours after announcing its decision, and to defer publication of the final list of candidates until October 25. It refused a blanket extension and said the Commission must decide case by case.
The Commission then deferred polls in 19 municipalities across seven districts and, on October 23, extended nominations for 48 hours in four bodies: the Kadapa and Tirupati Municipal Corporations and the Rajampet and Mydukuru Municipalities. Under the revised schedule for all 100 bodies, polling is set for November 1, with a re-poll, if needed, on November 2.
What the Court said on October 27
At the start of the hearing, the Bench said it would issue all necessary directions to the State Election Commission to ensure that the elections are held in a fair and transparent manner. The Chief Justice added that the Court would direct the High Court to monitor the process on a day-to-day basis. Justice Bagchi recalled that the Court had earlier said representations on non-filing of nominations, with supporting documents, would be considered and that others would not. The Solicitor General told the Court that the Commission had extended the period for filing nominations wherever it found there was some difficulty.
The Solicitor General argued that the settled position in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal still holds the field and that a writ petition does not lie against the electoral process once under way, adding that CCTV coverage and other safeguards had been provided. Justice Bagchi responded that if anyone feels that a valid claim was wrongly disputed, that person can file an election petition. The Chief Justice said the earlier directions on CCTV coverage will continue for all other elections and that the recordings will be preserved beyond the limitation period for election challenges.
The parties’ positions on follow-up
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh submitted that the list of persons said to have been prevented from filing nominations is available on the record. The Chief Justice observed that those who had already approached the High Court could be asked to have the High Court take up their matters. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, for the State, said that course would become chaotic, and the Solicitor General urged the Court not to keep a continuing mandamus in place.
As the hearing was reported, the Court recorded that the allegations involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be decided at this stage, that the Commission has already considered representations and extended deadlines in certain cases, and that persons claiming wrongful exclusion may pursue election petitions, subject to establishing their claims under law.
The legal position
The Constitution Bench in N.P. Ponnuswami laid down that, once an election process has begun, the remedy for a grievance about it lies in an election petition after the result and not in a writ petition mid-way. For municipal elections, Article 243ZG of the Constitution similarly provides that an election can be called in question only by an election petition before the authority prescribed by State law. Courts therefore ordinarily avoid altering a timetable mid-process, and the October 21 order was framed to keep the first decision with the State Election Commission while preserving judicial review for rejected claims.
Why the order matters
The order marks the point at which the Court moves the dispute from interim supervision to the ordinary election-law route. Questions about who was physically stopped, where and by whom turn on evidence, and the Court’s direction that CCTV recordings be preserved beyond the limitation period is meant to ensure that such evidence survives for any later election petition. Whether any individual candidate succeeds is for the forum that hears those petitions, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits of either side’s allegations.
Case Title: YSRCP v. State Election Commission and Others (Special Leave Petition against the Andhra Pradesh High Court order of October 18, 2026)
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Supreme Court of India
Date of hearing: October 27, 2026
Appearances: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State Election Commission; Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra for the State of Andhra Pradesh; Senior Advocate Maninder Singh in the matter