The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission to decide by October 22 whether the nomination deadline for the state's urban local body elections should be extended in places where candidates were allegedly prevented from filing their papers. A bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also held back the final list of candidates, which was due on Wednesday, and directed the Director General of Police to ensure police protection and CCTV surveillance at nomination centres. The court was hearing a petition by the YSR Congress Party, which alleges that its candidates were obstructed through violence and intimidation during the nomination window from October 16 to 18.

Supreme Court Directions: Election Panel Told to Decide by October 22

The bench said that if the commission decides to extend the deadline, candidates must get at least 48 hours from the publication of that decision to file their nominations. It held that the petitioner party had made out a prima facie case for directions, while making it clear that it had given no finding on whether the alleged violence took place. The allegations, the court indicated, remain to be examined by the election commission.

The commission and the state government have been asked to file a compliance report by October 27, when the matter will be heard next.

YSRCP's allegations and the road through the High Court

Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for YSRCP, told the bench that nearly 63% of the party's candidates were prevented from filing nominations. He said nomination papers were snatched and torn in Kadapa, and that candidates were assaulted and stopped in Tirupati, Punganur and Rayachoti. Nine candidates from Tirupati have filed affidavits in support of the allegations.

The party had first approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court on October 10, seeking additional nomination centres for the elections. A single judge dismissed the plea on October 15, and a division bench on October 18 refused a one-day extension, holding that it would interfere with the election process already under way. The party then moved the Supreme Court.

Separately, vehicles were set on fire near the homes of YSRCP candidates in Pulivendula ahead of the withdrawal deadline, according to reports. The party has blamed TDP workers for the incidents, a charge the state government has not accepted.

State's opposition and the bench's response

The state government opposed the plea in court. Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra alleged that the petitioner party had itself instigated the violence, while Mukul Rohatgi argued that YSRCP was attempting to create a media narrative around the elections.

The bench did not accept the argument that it should stay away from the matter. It observed that the hands of constitutional courts are not tied when appropriate interference is necessary to ensure that free and fair elections are not polluted by unconstitutional or illegal means.

The Commission's Decision: What Happens Next

Courts ordinarily refuse to interfere once an election process is under way, which is the course the High Court took twice in this case. The Supreme Court's intervention rests on the argument that preventing a candidate from filing a nomination at all strikes at the fairness of the process itself, and with the final list of candidates held back, the announced calendar for the municipal elections now stands disrupted.

The elections are a prestige contest between the ruling TDP-led NDA and the opposition YSRCP. The commission's decision on October 22 will determine whether a fresh nomination window of at least 48 hours opens in the disputed areas, and a new date for the final list of candidates will follow.