Gajulapalle Siva Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Heard Sri Satheesh Kumar Eerla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.2/APSEC.

The present writ petition is instituted challenging the action of the 5^th respondent in rejecting the petitioner's nomination orally without assigning any reasons, without passing any order.

It is contended that, pursuant to the 2^nd respondent's notification dated 14.10.2026 for conducting elections to the Urban Local Bodies, the petitioner filed his nomination for the post of Corporator of Badvel Municipality, YSR Kadapa District. The petitioner contends that, under Rule 12(3) of the AP Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Members) Rules, 2005, the Election Officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision to accept or reject it. If the nomination paper is rejected, he shall record the reason for such rejection. It is contended that after filing the nomination, the petitioner was orally informed that his nomination was rejected. The petitioner sought a copy of the rejection order. However, the authority refused to provide it without assigning reasons.

It is contended that, of the 40 Corporators in the subject Municipality, 35 were unanimously elected from TDP party, 2 from JANASENA party and 2 were independent candidates. The Election Officer has rejected the petitioner's party nominations without assigning any reasons.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, while contending that, even assuming that, after the issuance of the election notification, this Court would be under judicial restraint in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however en masse rejection of nominations by the election authorities call for intervention by the Constitutional Courts, especially when the spirit of free and fair elections has weakened. It is contended that the en masse rejection of nominations amounts to an exercise of jurisdiction by the election authority in a biased and unfair manner, without exercising its discretion judicially. It is further contended that the en masse rejection of nominations lacks rationale and vitiates the entire election process.

In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh and others Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and another^{11.2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749} and the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party Vs. the State of Andhara Pradesh and others^{22.SLP (C) No.37476 of 2026}.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that, placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, and Judgment of Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of AP in the cases of:

Considered the submissions.

It is pertinent to observe that the AP Municipalities (Election of Members) Rules, 2005 are no longer in force, in light of the amendment to the said rules, which brought into effect a new set of rules namely the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats (Conduct of elections to the Office of Chair Persons and Ward Members in the Municipalities and Nagar Panchayats) Rules, 2026 (for short herein after referred as ‘the Rules’).

Under the new rules, Rule 12 provides procedure for scrutiny of nominations. On the day appointed for scrutiny of nominations, the candidate(s), the election agent(s), the proposer of each such candidate, and one other person, duly authorised in writing by each candidate, may attend for scrutiny of nomination papers. The Election Officer shall then examine the nomination papers and shall decide all the objections which may be made at the time of any nomination and may, either on such objection or, on his own motion after such summary inquiry, reject the nomination on any of the grounds that are set out therein, and the Election Officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting the same, and if the nomination paper is rejected he shall record in brief the statement of reasons for such rejection. Such scrutiny shall be completed on the day appointed in this behalf under Rule 6, and no adjournment of the proceeding would be granted. In case of any objection, the candidate concerned would be allowed time to rebut it; if not, it would be done on the next day, and not later than the next day. After such scrutiny the validly nominated list of candidates shall be published in Form-IV.

The proviso to Rule 66 of the said Rules, provides that the Commission shall not entertain any petition relating to irregularities arising from the time of calling for nominations until the declaration of results. The Election Tribunal should decide such cases.

Having regard to the elaborate procedure contemplated under the Rules for scrutiny of the nominations, the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was orally informed of the rejection, any adjudication in the said regard requires recording a finding and further having regard to the fact that the declaration in the prescribed format declaring a candidate as unanimously elected has already been issued, any adjudication at this juncture on the issue raised by the petitioner amounts to interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same would be in violation to the provisions of Article 243ZG and Article 243(O) of the Constitution of India respectively which bars any such interference.

In light of the procedure provided under the Rules and having regard to the judgments of the Apex Court and Judgment of Full Bench of the erstwhile High Court of AP in the cases of:

For adjudication of the issue raised in the case it is very relevant to refer to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court under Art.226 of Constitution of India, in election matters relating to rejection of nominations of the contesting candidates.

The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh and others Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conferernce and another^{1313.2023 LiveLaw (SC) 749} is distinguishable on facts. In the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court, while holding that restraint, self-imposed by the courts as a general principle laid out in some detail in some of the decisions (discussed therein) in election matters, to the extent that once a notification is issued and the election process starts, the Constitutional Courts under normal circumstances, are loath to interfere, is not a contentious issue; but, where issues crop up, indicating unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb the level playing field between the candidates with no justifiable or intelligible basis, the Constitutional Courts are required and they are duty-bound to step in.

And the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court arising out of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in I.A.No.1 of 2026, rejecting the interlocutory application filed to extend the time period for filing the nomination. Having regard to the facts and circumstances that were prevailing in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given certain directions and observed that the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to in the said judgment unequivocally state that Constitutional Courts would ordinarily not interfere with the 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 extra-constitutional or illegal means, e.g., muscle power.

In the circumstances of this case, having regard to the fact that a candidate has already been declared unanimously elected, the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. And in the light of the Constitutional bar as envisaged under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Full Bench judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the cases referred supra (at Paragraph 13), this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. The petitioner's contention regarding the en masse rejection of nominations would not merit consideration in the absence of locus standi to challenge the en masse rejection.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to observe that, the petitioner is at liberty to avail remedies available under law. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.