Supreme Court to Hear YSRCPs Plea on Nomination Deadline Dispute
The Supreme Court will review YSRCPs challenge against the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling on the nomination deadline for local body elections.

New Delhi, October 20 (Daily Kiran) : The Supreme Court is set to hear a plea from the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court‘s refusal to extend the nomination deadline for urban local body elections. This hearing will take place on Wednesday at 10:30 AM, as noted on the Supreme Court’s official website.
The YSRCP’s special leave petition, filed under Article 136 of the Constitution, contests the High Court’s decision to reject a request for a one-day extension of the nomination process. The party argues that disruptions and violence against its candidates on the first day of nominations, October 16, hindered their ability to file nominations.
According to the petition, candidates in areas such as Punganur, Rayachoti, Kadapa, and Tirupati faced significant obstacles. In Kadapa, one candidate’s nomination papers were reportedly seized and destroyed, while in Tirupati, several candidates were physically barred from entering the offices of the returning officers.
The petition also alleges that party workers and MP P.V. Mithun Reddy were attacked while traveling to submit nomination papers. Previously, the YSRCP had sought directions from the High Court for alternative nomination centers with adequate security, arguing that the failure to ensure a safe and fair nomination process violated constitutional provisions.
However, on October 15, a single judge denied the party’s request for comprehensive relief, allowing only individual candidates facing threats to contact election officials for alternative nomination locations. After this setback, the YSRCP appealed for an extension of the nomination deadline, emphasizing that the alleged barriers prevented its candidates from participating in the electoral process.
On October 18, the High Court dismissed the plea, stating that the deadline for nominations had already passed and that issuing any directives at that stage would interfere with the election process.



