Judicial Review Not Negated By Ongoing Polls When Widespread Violence Destroys Level Playing Field In Filing Nominations: Supreme Court

"The power of the constitutional Courts to exercise judicial review, though deferential in election matters, cannot be said to be wholly negated when the discharge of such constitutional duty of the State Election Commission is hampered due to widespread violence impairing peace and tranquility and thereby skewing a level playing field in filing nominations." Emphasizing that free and fair elections are an indelible part of the basic structure of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review is not muted during an ongoing election when violence disrupts a level playing field and prevents candidates from submitting their nominations, a Division Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana held on October 21, 2026.

The petitioner, Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP), approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court apprehending widespread violence and voter intimidation during the municipal elections notified on October 14, 2026. Following the dismissal of its writ petition as premature by a Single Judge, the petitioner moved an interlocutory application before the appellate bench seeking a one-day extension for nominations, which came to be dismissed on the ground that the election process had commenced. Aggrieved by the refusal to intervene when over 63.5 percent of its candidates were allegedly obstructed from filing nomination papers, the party approached the Supreme Court.

Whether the self-imposed judicial restraint of constitutional courts in election matters completely curtails judicial review when large-scale violence prevents candidates from exercising their right to file nomination papers?

Whether judicial directions extending nomination deadlines and establishing neutral nomination facilities amount to "calling in question an election" or operate to subserve and facilitate the conduct of free and fair elections under Article 243ZA of the Constitution?

Free and fair elections form the basic structure of the Constitution and demand an unhindered nomination process

The Supreme Court underscored that the constitutional duty cast upon the State Election Commission under Article 243ZA mandates the active assurance of a level playing field. The Bench observed that the right to participate in an election without hindrance is foundational to democracy.

The Court observed that discharge of such constitutional duty would necessarily include taking all requisite steps to ensure unhindered filing of nomination papers by all contesting candidates. It held that the deferential approach adopted by courts cannot be converted into absolute judicial abdication when peace and tranquility are intentionally breached.

Judicial deference to the poll process cannot be invoked to shield illegal use of muscle power

Addressing the principle of judicial non-interference, the Bench explained that judicial deference was devised to prevent the election process from being mired in intermediate hurdles, leaving grievances for election petitions. However, when statutory bodies fail to guarantee basic security, courts are duty-bound to act.

The Bench reiterated that when the principal opposition party had approached the court even prior to the notification and produced contemporaneous materials demonstrating coercion, the power of judicial review cannot remain muted on the routine plea of non-interference.

Interventions that facilitate election completion do not amount to calling an election into question

Relying on the locus classicus Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, the Bench reiterated that any judicial measure that facilitates the progress and completion of elections cannot be equated with an order calling an election into question.

Quoting the precedent, the Court emphasized that judicial review remains fully available against decisions of statutory election authorities where there is a demonstrated breach of law or an arbitrary exercise of statutory authority.

Constitutional courts are duty-bound to restore an unfairly disturbed level playing field

The Court drew support from its ruling in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, which had established that while courts generally maintain a hands-off approach, they are compelled to step in when unjust executive action or coercion disturbs equal competition among political parties.

Reaffirming its stance in Bharatiya Janata Party, West Bengal v. State of West Bengal, the Bench stated that instilling public confidence in local body governance is an essential requirement of the rule of law. It noted that the hands of constitutional courts are never tied when extra-constitutional methods such as muscle power imperil free and fair participation.

Holding that a prima facie case for intervention was established, the Supreme Court directed the State Election Commission to postpone the publication of the final list of candidates until October 25, 2026. The Court ordered the Commission to evaluate all representations and electronic evidence placed by candidates and decide on extending nomination timelines by at least 48 hours in urban local bodies where law and order prevented filings. The Bench further directed the provision of optional nomination desks at District Headquarters before the District Collector and instructed the Director General of Police to ensure strict CCTV coverage and bandobast.

Date of Decision: October 21, 2026