The Supreme Court has reiterated that courts can intervene in the electoral process when violence or unlawful methods undermine free and fair elections, holding that judicial restraint in election matters does not prevent constitutional courts from acting when necessary.

A bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana made the observations on Wednesday (October 21) while granting interim relief to the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP), Andhra Pradesh’s principal opposition party, in a dispute over nominations for urban local body elections, Live Law reported.

The YSRCP had approached the apex court on Tuesday (October 20), alleging that violence during the nomination process had prevented its candidates from participating in the elections. The move followed the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s refusal to grant the party’s request for an extension of the nomination deadline.

Emphasising the constitutional importance of electoral participation, the Supreme Court observed, “Free and fair elections are a basic structure of the Constitution. Right to freely participate in such election by filing nomination papers without hindrance is a facet of the free and fair election process.”

The bench said that although courts generally exercise restraint in matters concerning elections, judicial review remains available when violence disrupts the responsibilities of the State Election Commission and prevents candidates from competing on equal terms.

“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,” the bench added.

The court explained that the established principle of judicial deference to election authorities stems from the need to allow an independent constitutional body to complete the electoral process within a prescribed timeframe. Unnecessary judicial intervention midway through an election could obstruct that process, it noted.

However, the bench made clear that this principle cannot be used to prevent courts from addressing situations in which elections are compromised through illegal means.

“These authorities above unequivocally state while constitutional courts would ordinarily not interfere with election process, but their hands are not tied when appropriate interventions are necessary to ensure that elections are conducted in a free and fair manner and are not marred by extraconstitutional or illegal means, for eg. muscle power,” the Supreme Court said, citing earlier rulings, including Union Territory of Ladakh and Others v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (2024) and Bharatiya Janata Party, West Bengal v. State of West Bengal and Others (2018).

The observations come amid a wider legal and political dispute over the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. A batch of petitions, including those filed by Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders, is challenging the exercise before the Supreme Court.

Opposition parties have alleged that the revision process has led to the exclusion of millions of eligible voters. Protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar have also drawn a crackdown by authorities, according to the allegations raised by the opposition.

Among the demands before the Supreme Court is the suspension of the SIR exercise across states until the petitions challenging its legality have been adjudicated.

The apex court’s observations in the YSRCP case underscore that the need to complete elections within a fixed timeframe cannot override the constitutional requirement that candidates be allowed to participate freely and that electoral competition remain free from violence, coercion and other unlawful interference.