Supreme Court Turns Away YSRCP Plea as Andhra Pradesh Nomination Row Exposes Election-Process Failures
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
The Supreme Court rejected the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party’s request to extend the nomination period in Andhra Pradesh municipal elections, while noting that the deadline had already been extended in places where obstacles were reported.
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition by the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) that sought an extension of the nomination deadline for Andhra Pradesh municipal elections. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana closed the matter after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State Election Commission (SEC), informed the court that the nomination period had been extended in areas where difficulties were identified.
Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the nomination period had already ended and urged parties to “now contest the elections, all the best.” The bench indicated that a detailed order will be issued to ensure the smooth conduct of the elections.
Earlier, a special bench had directed the SEC to consider extensions of the deadline where candidates faced law-and-order challenges and to defer publishing the candidate list until October 25. Following the court’s direction, the SEC extended the deadline in certain local bodies.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for YSRCP, reiterated that many opposition candidates were allegedly prevented from filing nominations. The Chief Justice cautioned against involving the courts in state politics and promised that the bench would issue necessary directions to the SEC for a free and fair election conducted transparently.
The SEC reported that it had extended the nomination period wherever difficulties were reported. The court also ordered the High Court to monitor the situation daily. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, for the state, stated that all required security measures had been provided.
When Singh highlighted that 532 of 722 candidates were contesting unopposed, the Chief Justice remarked that such sweeping statements would not aid anyone and asked for specific names of candidates who were prevented from filing nominations. Justice Bagchi noted that those whose representations were favorably considered by the Election Commission had already filed, and that any further claims would need to be substantiated as factual disputes.
The bench affirmed that earlier directives for CCTV coverage in elections would continue and that recordings must be preserved beyond the usual limitation period. Singh suggested adopting the approach used in Punjab municipal elections, where a retired High Court judge investigated allegations of violence and nomination obstruction. The Supreme Court indicated it would not conduct a broad inquiry but left the matter open for any aggrieved party to file an election petition.