Supreme Court directs Andhra SEC to decide on nomination extension by Thursday
Synopsis
The Supreme Court has stepped in where the Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to, directing the state Election Commission to decide by Thursday whether to extend the nomination window for Urban Local Body elections — after the YSRCP alleged its candidates were physically blocked, attacked, and had nomination papers torn in several constituencies. The final candidate list is frozen until 25 October.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court on 21 October 2026 directed the Andhra Pradesh SEC to decide by Thursday on extending the ULB election nomination deadline.
The final list of contesting candidates is frozen until 25 October , pending the SEC's decision.
Wherever an extension is granted, candidates must get at least 48 hours to file nominations after the SEC's ruling is published.
The DGP was ordered to ensure police deployment and CCTV coverage at nomination centres and file a compliance report.
The YSRCP alleged obstruction in Punganur, Rayachoti, Kadapa , and Tirupati ; nomination papers of a candidate in Kadapa were allegedly torn.
The next hearing is scheduled for 27 October , when the SEC and state government must file compliance affidavits.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 21 October 2026, directed the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission (SEC) to examine allegations that candidates of the Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy-led YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) were blocked from filing nominations for Urban Local Body (ULB) elections, and decide by Thursday whether the nomination deadline should be extended in the affected municipalities. The court also ordered the final list of contesting candidates to be kept on hold until 25 October.
What the Supreme Court Ordered
A Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana directed the SEC to assess representations and supporting evidence submitted by the YSRCP and other affected candidates on their merits — including documentary and electronic evidence — and take measures to ensure eligible candidates are not denied the right to contest.
Wherever an extension is granted, candidates must be given at least 48 hours from the publication of the SEC's decision to submit their nomination papers, and the election notification must be amended accordingly, the apex court said.
The matter will be heard again on 27 October, when both the SEC and the Andhra Pradesh state government are required to file compliance affidavits.
Security and Oversight Directions
The court directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to ensure adequate security at all nomination centres, including police deployment and CCTV coverage, and to file a compliance report. Respective Superintendents of Police were ordered to provide personal protection to YSRCP candidates. Where necessary, the court said nomination papers may be received by Collectors at district headquarters.
The Constitutional Principle at Stake
Underscoring the gravity of the allegations, the Justice Bagchi-led Bench observed that free and fair elections form part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and that the right to participate in elections by filing nominations is an integral facet of the electoral process.
The Bench said constitutional courts could not remain entirely silent when a principal Opposition party brought allegations of obstruction before them, particularly when the party had submitted representations and supporting material even before the election process commenced. 'Instilling confidence in the election process is vital for the maintenance of constitutional democracy,' the court stated, stressing the need for a level playing field.
YSRCP's Allegations
According to the petition, the YSRCP alleged that its candidates were prevented from filing nomination papers in several areas — including Punganur, Rayachoti, Kadapa, and Tirupati — after the nomination process opened on 16 October. Nomination papers of a candidate in Kadapa were allegedly seized and torn, while candidates in Tirupati were reportedly prevented from entering the offices of Returning Officers. The party also alleged that workers and Member of Parliament P.V. Midhun Reddy were attacked while travelling to file nomination papers.
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
The YSRCP had initially approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking alternative nomination centres with adequate security. A single judge on 15 October declined blanket relief but allowed individual candidates facing threats to seek alternative filing locations from Election Officers. The party then sought a one-day extension of the nomination deadline, which a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed on 18 October, holding that the nomination period had expired and that extending it would amount to interference with the election process.
The party subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, contending that restrictions on judicial intervention in election matters should not prevent constitutional courts from issuing directions to safeguard free and fair polls. The apex court's Wednesday order effectively overrides the High Court's refusal, placing the SEC under a court-supervised framework to address the contested nominations.
How the SEC responds by Thursday — and whether it grants an extension — will determine whether the affected YSRCP candidates get a fresh window to contest the Urban Local Body elections.
Point of View
Not merely counting of votes, as a fundamental right. What is less clear is whether a 48-hour extension window, if granted, will be enough — or safe enough — for YSRCP candidates in areas where the alleged obstruction was physical and organised. The compliance affidavit mechanism the court has built in is prudent, but its effectiveness depends on whether the DGP acts independently of a state government that the YSRCP accuses of complicity.
NationPress
21 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court order regarding Andhra Pradesh ULB elections?
The Supreme Court directed the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission to examine YSRCP's allegations that its candidates were blocked from filing nominations, and decide by Thursday whether to extend the deadline in affected municipalities. It also froze the final candidate list until 25 October and ordered police security at all nomination centres.
What did YSRCP allege about the nomination process?
The YSRCP alleged that its candidates were prevented from filing nomination papers in Punganur, Rayachoti, Kadapa, and Tirupati after the process opened on 16 October. Specifically, nomination papers of a candidate in Kadapa were allegedly seized and torn, and MP P.V. Midhun Reddy was reportedly attacked while travelling to file papers.
Why did the Supreme Court intervene despite the High Court refusing to act?
The Supreme Court held that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that the right to file nominations is integral to the electoral process. It said constitutional courts cannot remain silent when a principal Opposition party brings credible allegations of obstruction supported by documentary and electronic evidence.
What happens if the Andhra Pradesh SEC grants a nomination extension?
If the SEC grants an extension, it must give affected candidates at least 48 hours from the publication of its decision to file their nomination papers, and the election notification must be amended accordingly. Both the SEC and the state government must file compliance affidavits before the next hearing on 27 October.
What is the significance of the court's 'basic structure' observation?
By invoking the basic structure doctrine, the Supreme Court signalled that electoral participation — including the right to file nominations without obstruction — is a constitutional fundamental, not merely a statutory right. This framing raises the legal threshold for any authority seeking to deny or curtail that access.
