Free and fair elections form our constitution’s basic tenet

Violation of human rights has become an ‘order’ of the ‘law’ in local body elections, especially in Andhra Pradesh. Is it a human rights issue or a voting process, such as filing nominations and the struggle to participate in the elections? The Director General of Police (DGP) reported 31 election-related incidents in 13 districts during nominations, including 16 instances of nomination papers being snatched, torn, or destroyed. Before a voter can choose, a citizen must be allowed to stand. When that paper is snatched at the gate of a mandal parishad office, or torn in front of a returning officer, it is not a sheet of paper that is destroyed. It is a constitutional right. It is not possible to rely on rumours. The only sources will be the press releases, videos, representations and memorandums. Officially, one can only rely on statements of the government.

Unanimity is not a crime. Sometimes a party simply has no candidate. But when (unanimous) ekagreevam grows exactly where violence was recorded, it begins to look like ekapaksham, a one-sided affair.

Andhra Pradesh conducted its urban local body elections on Sunday. It attracted considerable attention because of allegations of intimidation, violence, obstruction of candidates and polling agents, and misuse of official machinery during the nomination process and polling.

The opposition YSRCP alleged that polling agents were prevented from entering approximately 70 of the 80 polling booths; their authorisation papers were allegedly torn; voters were obstructed from exercising their franchise; several instances of booth capturing, bogus voting and intimidation and dismal police interventions.

TDP rejects YSRCP allegations:

The Opposition party submitted a representation to the returning officer demanding cancellation of polling and repolling in all 80 booths. The TDP rejected these allegations and maintained that polling was conducted freely. According to reports from Kadapa district, supporters of the two parties clashed in Y Jagan Mohan Reddy’s bastion Pulivendula. The police acknowledged the clashes. Complaints of electoral intimidation and obstruction were also reported.

An important development was the statement by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) that approximately 40 incidents had been reported and 275 FIRs registered in connection with the elections. The Commission reopened nominations for specified wards in four civic bodies, in Kadapa, Rajampet, Tirupati and Mydupur urban bodies.

This followed Supreme Court directions concerning the nomination process. On October 31, the State Election Commissioner sought a report from the DGP regarding allegations of police bias, inaction and electoral violence.

Constitutional and legal significance:

These developments raise important questions concerning the constitutional guarantee of free and fair elections. The following provisions and principles deserve attention:

Article 243ZA: Superintendence, direction and control of municipal elections vest in the State Election Commission.

Article 14: Equality before the law and protection against arbitrary State action.

Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of political expression.

Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty, relevant where intimidation and violence threaten citizens.

Representation of the People Act and applicable State municipal election laws: Electoral offences, corrupt practices and procedural safeguards must be examined under the provisions applicable to these elections.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised the importance of free and fair elections as an essential feature of democracy. The most important question is not merely which political party secured more votes. It is whether every eligible voter could vote freely, every candidate could contest without intimidation, every authorised polling agent could discharge his or her duty, and the police and election authorities acted impartially.

The allegations of booth obstruction, destruction of authorisation papers, intimidation and police inaction require independent verification. Equally, the allegations made against opposition cadres must be investigated without political discrimination.

To the apex court and back:

The Supreme Court, by order dated 21.10.2026 in SLP (C) No. 37476/2026, directed the SEC to consider extending the time for nominations wherever candidates could not file them because of law-and-order problems. The order and the SEC’s compliance are recorded in the SEC’s own Notification No. 905/SEC-B1/2026 dated 28.10.2026. The Court observed that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Pursuant to that order, the State Election Commission (SEC) issued a notification on October 22 extending the time for filing nominations by two days to October 23 and 24 in four urban local bodies (ULBs).

The SEC relieved police officers of duty for misconduct. Its October 28 press note records that the inspector and a sub-inspector at Molakalacheruvu were relieved “for their negligence and partisan attitude in discharging election-related duties”. The same fate was met by a SI at Chilakaluripet.

The complaint concerns only the conduct of public servants of different designations, about violations of the rights to life, liberty, equality and dignity, and negligence in preventing them, which fall within Section 12(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

The incidents are set out in three categories: (A) conduct of public servants confirmed by official action; (B) incidents recorded by the police or reported with video evidence; and (C) allegations that require independent investigation, prior to polling.

Conduct of public servants confirmed by official action:

Molakalacheruvu (Annamayya district), MPTC/ZPTC nominations. The SEC pointed out that an inspector and an SI from Molakalacheruvu circle were relieved from their duties on October 24 for their negligence and partisan attitude in discharging election related duties”.

October 23: Chilakaluripet (Palnadu dist): A former woman minister, who was under house arrest, was allegedly pushed to the ground at her residence by a Chilakaluripet Rural SI, when a ZPTC nominee came to collect the party form required for his nomination. The SEC took a serious view of the incident, ordered disciplinary action, directed that the officer be relieved of election-related and regular duties, and called for a report on disciplinary action from the Superintendent of Police, Palnadu, before November 5. The use of force by a police officer against a woman in police restraint engages Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

October 18: Pulivendula (Kadapa dist): On the last day of urban nominations, a woman candidate for the post of chairperson of Pulivendula Municipality stated that the police restricted her from going to the nomination centre for the entire day, citing law and order issues. The post was reserved for women. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, confirmed the clashes and alleged stone-pelting at Pulivendula and the imposition of restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Preventing a woman candidate from reaching the nomination centre until the deadline expired, without any order of detention, defeats the reservation for women under Article 243T and calls for inquiry. Twenty of the forty wards of Pulivendula were later declared won unopposed.

Plight of women candidates: On the second day of MPTC/ZPTC nominations, women candidates were attacked, and their nomination papers snatched and torn at several centres despite the presence of police personnel. The house of a woman candidate for the post of mayor of Kadapa, reserved for women, was attacked by unidentified men who allegedly threw knives and glass bottles on the night of October 19, hours after the scrutiny of nominations. These acts attract Sections 74, 79 and 351 of the BNS; police inaction in the face of such acts is negligence in preventing violations. A video circulated widely shows a sitting legislator from Tirupati district, speaking at a private marriage hall in Kaluvoya, urging his cadres to “break the legs” of people coming to file nominations. The complainant was not aware of any FIR having been registered and requests the Commission to ascertain this and to recommend registration and investigation if none has been registered.

1975 Judgment

The Supreme Court had said long back, in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of our Constitution.

(The writer is former Registrar, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Madabhushi Sridhar

Madabhushi Sridhar[email protected]