New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held, prima facie, that the bar on judicial interference in elections after the process has begun does not stop courts from stepping in where widespread violence impairs the free filing of nominations.
Hearing a petition by the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party against the dismissal of its plea by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, it directed the State Election Commission to postpone publication of the final list of candidates till 25.10.f2026 and to decide, by the next day, whether to extend the last date for nominations in urban local bodies.
A Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, in an order dated 21.10.2026, issued notice on SLP (C) No. 37476/2026 against the High Court of Andhra Pradesh’s judgment of 18.10.2026 in I.A. No. 4/2026. The petitioner, the principal opposition party in the State, had alleged widespread violence and apprehended that its members would be stopped from filing nominations for the municipal elections, for which the State Election Commission issued the schedule on 14.10.2026. It sought a mandamus declaring the authorities’ inaction illegal under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 243K and 243ZA, and an additional nomination facility at each District Headquarters with security.
The High Court Single Judge dismissed the petition as premature, giving individual intending candidates liberty to apply to the Election Officer for designating another place for filing nominations. In the appeal, it dismissed an application to extend the nomination date by a day as beyond the scope of the writ petition and because interference would be imprudent once the process had begun and the time for nominations had expired.
The petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that over 63.5 per cent of its candidates were not allowed to submit nominations in 19 of 100 urban local bodies, and that the Election Commission’s orders of 16.10.2026 for police protection and CCTV were not complied with. The Commission denied this, saying remedial measures were taken and the process was postponed at places like Mydukur Municipality, while Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra for the State said the petitioner had not come with clean hands.
The Court held:
“Free and fair elections are a basic structure of the Constitution. Right to freely participate in such election by filing nomination papers without hindrance is a facet of the free and fair election process.”
It also held that the State Election Commission has a constitutional duty under Article 243ZA to conduct and supervise municipal elections fairly, which includes ensuring unhindered filing of nominations, and that judicial review, though deferential in election matters, is not wholly negated where discharge of this duty is hampered by widespread violence that skews a level playing field.
The Court explained that judicial deference rests on a doctrine of necessity, so that elections run by an independent constitutional authority conclude on time, with grievances left to an election petition. But where the principal opposition party approached the High Court before the process began with representations and materials showing serious apprehension of force and coercion, judicial review cannot be muted, and intervention to ensure a fair conclusion is not “calling in question an election”. It cited Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (2000), Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, (2024) 18 SCC 643, and Bharatiya Janata Party, West Bengal v. State of West Bengal (2018).
Finding a prima facie case, the Court directed that the Commission postpone publication of the final list till 25.10.2026; consider the petitioner’s and candidates’ representations, including electronic evidence, and decide by the next day whether to extend nominations in urban local bodies where candidates could not file due to law and order, any extension being for not less than 48 hours from publication by amending the notification; make additional arrangements for filing at District Headquarters before the District Collector wherever necessary; and take all steps to remove the petitioner’s apprehensions and file a compliance report.
The Director General of Police was directed to maintain bandobast and CCTV coverage at nomination centres, protect candidates, and file a compliance report. The matter is listed on 27.10.2026.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Maninder Singh and Mr. Nikhil Goel, Senior Advocates, with Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR.
For the Respondents: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Mr. K. Parameshwar (State Election Commission), Senior Advocates; Mr. Dammalapati Srinivas, Advocate General; Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar and Mr. Amit Pai, AORs, and others.
Case Title: Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., SLP (C) No. 37476 of 2026
