The YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) has approached the Supreme Court alleging that its candidates were obstructed from filing nominations for the upcoming Andhra Pradesh urban local body elections. The party claims that on the first day of nominations, October 16, its candidates faced violence and interference at multiple centres, including Punganur, Rayachoti, Kadapa, and Tirupati.
According to the petition, nomination papers of a candidate were snatched and torn at Kadapa, while candidates in Tirupati were assaulted and prevented from reaching nomination centres. Nine Tirupati candidates have submitted affidavits stating they were obstructed while attempting to file their nominations. The party first moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court on October 10, seeking additional nomination centres before the polls were notified. A single judge dismissed that plea on October 15.
Subsequently, YSRCP approached the High Court again on October 18, highlighting the violence at nomination centres and seeking a one-day extension to the filing deadline. A division bench of the High Court comprising Justices Ninala Jayasurya and Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi rejected the plea, holding that the time for filing nominations had expired and any judicial direction to extend it would amount to impermissible interference with the electoral process.
This decision prompted the party to move the Supreme Court. The plea challenges the High Court’s order and argues that the principle of non-interference with elections is not an absolute bar on judicial intervention when the democratic process is being thwarted. The petition contends that the expiry of the nomination period was itself a consequence of the obstruction complained of and therefore cannot be relied upon to deny relief.
The YSRCP has sought the following reliefs: extension of the nomination period, establishment of additional nomination centres with videography, police protection for candidates, and a stay on any declarations of unopposed candidature. The petition was filed through advocate Mahfooz A Nazki.
What is the legal basis for judicial intervention in election processes when candidates are allegedly obstructed from filing nominations?
The Supreme Court has previously held that while courts must exercise restraint in electoral matters, they are duty-bound to intervene when the democratic process is subverted by external obstruction, and the expiry of time limits caused by such obstruction cannot be used to deny relief, as the responsibility lies with the State to ensure free and fair elections.
The matter is scheduled for hearing before a vacation Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana on October 21, 2026, which is also the last date for withdrawal of candidature. Polling for the urban local body elections is set for October 28, 2026. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had earlier refused to extend the nomination deadline, citing the expiry of time and the principle of non-interference with elections.
The petition underscores that the alleged incidents of violence and obstruction were not isolated but systemic, affecting multiple constituencies and undermining the integrity of the electoral process. The party maintains that the Constitutional Courts have an affirmative duty to ensure transparency and prevent candidates from being forced out of the race due to unlawful interference.
No interim order has been passed by the Supreme Court as of the date of reporting. The plea remains pending adjudication, and the Court’s intervention will determine whether the nomination process can be reopened to accommodate those allegedly prevented from participating due to violence and administrative failure.