Judicial Review Under Article 226/136 Not Muted During Polls If Violence Skews Level Playing Field: Supreme Court Invokes Article 243ZA To Protect Right To File Nominations

"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."

NEW DELHI — Observing that unhindered participation by filing nominations is an inseparable facet of free and fair elections forming part of the basic structure, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana on October 21, 2026, ruled that constitutional courts are duty-bound to intervene during an ongoing election process when pervasive violence impairs the level playing field guaranteed under Article 243ZA of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party, the principal opposition party in Andhra Pradesh, approached the Apex Court challenging an interlocutory order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which refused to extend the nomination period for urban local body elections. The petitioner alleged that widespread political violence and state inaction prevented more than sixty percent of its candidates from filing nomination papers across nineteen municipalities. The High Court had declined interim relief on the ground that intermediate judicial interference during an active election cycle is impermissible.

Whether constitutional courts are completely barred by the doctrine of judicial deference from intervening in an ongoing election process when candidate nominations are hindered by systemic violence and coercion?

Whether the constitutional mandate vested in the State Election Commission under Article 243ZA encompasses an affirmative duty to extend nomination deadlines and establish neutral nomination centers to safeguard a level playing field?

Examining the constitutional scheme under Article 243ZA, the Bench observed that free and fair elections form an unalterable facet of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that an election loses its democratic legitimacy when contesting candidates are forcefully restrained from exercising their democratic right to submit nomination papers.

Judicial deference to election schedule must yield to level playing field.

Addressing the principle of judicial non-interference once the election schedule commences, the Court clarified that intermediate judicial forbearance is a doctrine of necessity meant to prevent derailment of electoral timelines. However, the Bench held that the self-imposed restraint of constitutional courts cannot be weaponized into an absolute shield when public law rights are violently trampled upon.

Reiterating the settled position in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, the Court ruled that judicial intervention does not amount to calling an election into question if the orders rendered facilitate the completion and integrity of the election process itself.

Constitutional courts are duty-bound to prevent extra-constitutional muscular dominance.

The Bench cited the precedent in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference to reaffirm that constitutional courts cannot remain mute spectators when executive inertia or muscular intimidation creates an uneven electoral contest. Judicial review remains available to supervise statutory and constitutional authorities exercising powers that infringe public law rights.

Directing immediate remedial action, the Court held that where credible representations and electronic materials reveal that candidates were obstructed from filing nominations due to law and order breakdown, the State Election Commission must proactively exercise its supervisory mandate.

The Supreme Court directed the State Election Commission to postpone the publication of the final list of candidates until October 25, 2026, and evaluate representations to extend nomination periods by not less than forty-eight hours in violence-affected urban local bodies. The Court also ordered the provision of additional nomination facilities at District Headquarters, mandatory CCTV surveillance, and strict police bandobast under the supervision of the Director General of Police, posting the compliance hearing for October 27, 2026.

Date of Decision: October 21, 2026

Case Title: Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. | Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 37476/2026

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice V. Mohana