AP Municipal Polls : Supreme Court Asks State Election Commission To Decide On YSRCP Plea To Extend Nomination Deadline
The Court asked the SEC to postpone the publication of final list of candidates till October 25.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission (APSEC) to take a decision on the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party's (YSRCP) plea seeking extension of the deadline for filing nominations for the elections of Urban Local Bodies, wherever the SEC is of the view that the candidates were unable to file nominations due to the law and order situation. The decision should be taken by tomorrow, considering the representations filed by the YSRCP and its candidates, including video clips.
If the SEC chooses to extend the time, such time shall be extended by 48 hours from the time of publishing the decision.
A special bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, deciding the petition filed by YSRCP, also asked the SEC not to publish the final list of candidates, which was scheduled to be published today (October 21), and to defer its publication until October 25.
The bench also directed the Director General of Police to ensure necessary protection to candidates, police bandobast and CCTV coverage at nomination centres. The principal opposition party in the State had approached the Court after the High Court refused to direct the extension of the nomination deadline.
The matter will be considered on October 27, when the SEC and the State have to file compliance affidavits.
The Court made the interference holding that judicial interference is possible to ensure free and fair elections.
"Free and fair election is a basic structure of the Constitution. Right to participate in such elections by filing nominations is a facet of free and fair election process. While it is the Constitutional mandate to vest the State Election Commission with the duty of conducting and supervising such elections, which would necessarily include all steps to ensure free and transparent filing of nomination papers by the contesting candidates, the power of the Constitutional courts to exercise judicial review in furtherance of election process cannot be said to be wholly nugatory...." the Court observed.
The bench said that it was conscious of the judicial deference to the powers of the SEC in the matter of holding of elections.
"Such philosophy of deference has grown from a doctrine of necessity that the election process must be entrusted in the hands of an independent constitutional authority and within a timeline, and not be mired in the quagmire of judicial interference. But, at the same time, it cannot be ignored that the custodian of constitutional values is the constitutional courts and the power of judicial review to ensure a free and fair election by filing of nomination papers cannot be wholly muted when a principal opposition party is before us and has placed on record representations and materials, even prior to the commencement of the election process, expressing serious apprehensions with regard to hindrance in filing of nomination papers. Instilling confidence in the election process is vital for the maintenance of constitutional democracy.
While the constitutional courts would not ordinarily interfere with the election process, their hands are not tied when appropriate interference is necessary to ensure that free and fair elections are not polluted by unconstitutional or illegal means. Bearing in mind these principles and the materials placed before us, which include various representations made by the petitioner-party as well as the candidates before the SEC, both physically and in electronic form, as well as electronic evidence in the form of video clippings, etc., we are of the opinion that the petitioner has made a prima facie case for passing the directions."
Arguments in the Court
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, for the party, submitted that almost 2/3rd of the candidates were prevented from filing nominations.
The bench then asked Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, for the AP State Election Commission, to consider the representation made by the YSRCP to extend the nomination date.
"We request you to consider and extend the due date by one day," Justice Bagchi told Parameshwar. Parameshwar replied that the conduct of the election is within the sole domain of the SEC, and the Court may not pass any mandamus in this regard. Justice Bagchi said that no mandamus was being passed as the Court did not want to interfere with the election process. At the same time, Justice Bagchi referred to the reports of breach of law and order, which the SEC itself took notice of while ordering police protection etc.
"They made the prayer on 16th. As per rules, you can extend the date by six days from the date of notification, which is 14th. So you could have easily given at least till 20th," Justice Bagchi said.
Parameshwar said that wherever there was genuine apprehension of violence, the SEC itself has directed to put the election on hold(in Mydukur municipality). He said that the YSRCP filed the writ petition on October 10, and they did not move it until the 13th; when the matter was heard on 15th, they did not raise any prayer for extension.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, for the AP Government, submitted that the "things were not as simple as being projected by the petitioner", and contended that YSRCP themselves perpetrated the violence. He said that people were brought by the petitioner from Punjab to engender violence and to mar the poll process.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also for the State, said that the petitioner was not interested in the elections and was only creating a media narrative.
Refuting the arguments of the State and the SEC, Singh stated that nearly 63% of the candidates could not file nominations; this would mean that in 63% of constituencies, the candidates of the ruling party will win unopposed. He stated that there are videos showing brazen violence, including nomination papers being torn. He underscored that they had approached the High Court well before the election notification, raising apprehensions of violence. He claimed that the police was taking an indifferent and selective approach to their complaints.
The party filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court's October 18 order refusing to extend the nomination period by one day. The High Court had dismissed the party's application seeking an extension, holding that the deadline had expired and that extending it would amount to interference with the election process.
The party has sought police protection for candidates, an extension of the deadline for filing nominations, and the designation of additional and alternative nomination centres to enable candidates to submit their papers safely.
About the petition
The YSRCP, in the petition filed through its General Secretary Lella Appireddy, contends that several of its candidates were allegedly assaulted, threatened or physically prevented from reaching nomination centres during the nomination period, which began on October 16 and ended on October 18.
According to the petition, incidents of violence were reported in Punganur, Rayachoti, Kadapa and Tirupati. The party has alleged that nomination papers of a candidate in Kadapa were snatched and torn, while nine candidates contesting the Tirupati Municipal Corporation elections were prevented from entering the offices of the concerned Returning Officers.
The petition also refers to an alleged attack on the convoy of YSRCP MP P.V. Midhun Reddy while he was accompanying candidates to file their nominations. The party had earlier approached the High Court seeking additional nomination facilities at district headquarters, citing apprehensions of violence. On October 15, a Single Judge declined to grant the omnibus relief sought and granted liberty to individual candidates to approach the concerned Election Officers.
Following the alleged incidents on October 16, the party sought an extension of the nomination deadline from the State Election Commission. The Commission directed that adequate security be provided at nomination centres but did not extend the deadline, the petition states.
The YSRCP has argued that courts should intervene to protect the electoral process when candidates are allegedly prevented from contesting elections. It has also sought a direction that candidates who were unable to file nominations due to the alleged obstruction be allowed to submit their papers during the extended period.
The YSRCP has argued that the bar on judicial interference in the election process is a rule of judicial restraint and not an absolute prohibition. It contends that the restriction on courts entertaining challenges to elections outside the prescribed election petition mechanism does not prevent constitutional courts from issuing directions that aid and facilitate the conduct of elections.
The party has submitted that courts must intervene where the democratic process is allegedly being thwarted, and candidates are prevented from contesting elections. It has further argued that the expiry of the nomination deadline cannot be a ground to deny relief when the alleged obstruction itself prevented candidates from filing their papers.
Additionally, the party has sought a stay on the declaration of candidates as elected unopposed in the affected wards pending further orders from the Supreme Court.
The petition has been filed through AoR Mahfooz A. Nazki.