AP municipal polls: Supreme Court moots broad guidelines but says can't order roving inquiry into YSRCP's allegations

The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally remarked that it could not order a fishing or roving inquiry into allegations that candidates belonging to the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) were prevented from filing nominations for local body elections in Andhra Pradesh.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana observed that allegations of wrongful exclusion involve disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated in the ongoing proceedings.

"We will not order a fishing or roving inquiry. We will issue a set of guidelines so that it can be followed," CJI Surya Kant said.

However, the Court said it will consider laying down guidelines to safeguard the electoral process including preservation of CCTV footage.

The Court was examining compliance with its earlier directions requiring the State Election Commission (SEC) to consider complaints of candidates allegedly prevented from filing nominations.

YSRCP approached the Supreme Court after the Andhra Pradesh High Court declined relief concerning nomination arrangements and extension of deadlines.

The party alleged violence and intimidation in several places, including Kadapa, Tirupati, Punganur and Rayachoti.

On October 21, a vacation Bench of Justices Bagchi and Mohana directed the SEC to consider representations, including electronic evidence, and extend nomination deadlines wherever candidates were found to have been prevented from filing nominations due to law and order problems.

The Commission was also directed to defer publication of the final list of candidates until October 25.

When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the Bench noted that the SEC had acted upon representations and extended nomination deadlines in certain cases.

It said candidates claiming wrongful exclusion would have to establish that they had attempted to file nominations but were prevented from doing so.

"These are disputed questions of fact," the Bench observed.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for YSCRP, submitted that a large number of candidates had been excluded despite approaching the authorities. He also referred to allegations concerning approximately 1,200 candidates in other local body elections.

However, the Bench said it could not examine such allegations individually during the ongoing electoral process.

"We cannot go into this nebulous area," the Court remarked, while clarifying that aggrieved candidates could pursue remedies through election petitions.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the State government, opposed further intervention by the Court. He argued that opening individual grievances would create uncertainty in the electoral process.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also expressed concern over repeated applications concerning the elections.

The Bench mooted preservation of CCTV recordings to enable examination of electoral grievances at an appropriate stage.

Maninder Singh sought directions akin to what had been passed in relation to Punjab polls.

"In the Punjab case, Your Lordships appointed a judge and passed directions.The facts here require even more serious consideration. Of approximately 1,600 candidates in the second phase of elections under the same notification, including Zilla Parishad elections, 1,200 were allegedly prevented from filing nominations. Please consider adopting the mechanism followed in the Punjab case," Singh said.

"The facts of the Punjab case were different," Luhtra rebutted.

The CJI eventually indicated that comprehensive guidelines would be issued to safeguard the electoral process, while distinguishing earlier judicial interventions made in exceptional circumstances.

It then proceeded to defer the case for three weeks.

[Read Live Coverage]