Election Obstruction Claims Must Be Raised Through an Election Petition; CCTV Footage Ordered Preserved

The petitioners alleged that police personnel obstructed them from submitting nomination papers for the Konuru Village MPTC Elections, 2026. By the time the matter was considered, the election process had concluded. The High Court held that challenges concerning alleged obstruction or irregularity in an election must be pursued through an election petition under the applicable election law, in view of Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution. The reliefs concerning nomination filing, extension of time and police protection had therefore become infructuous. The Court did not decide the truth of the allegations, but directed the concerned police authorities to preserve the available CCTV footage from the relevant police station and time period so that it could be used in the proposed election proceedings. (Paras 6–11)

Background / Synopsis :

● The petitioners sought to contest the Konuru Village MPTC Elections, 2026. They alleged that respondent Nos. 6 to 12 obstructed them from submitting their nomination papers.

● They sought a declaration that the alleged obstruction was illegal, police protection under the supervision of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and permission to submit nominations through electronic or postal modes or an extension of time.

● The writ petition was filed on the last date fixed for submission of nominations. In the meantime, the nomination process and the MPTC election process across the State were completed.

● After completion of the election, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 4 of 2026 seeking preservation of Atchampet Police Station CCTV footage for 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on 23 October 2026, along with relevant electronic records and call detail records.

Issues For Consideration :

● Whether the High Court could grant relief concerning nomination filing, extension of time and police protection after completion of the election process.

● Whether the petitioners' remedy against the alleged obstruction was to approach the competent forum through an election petition.

● Whether the available CCTV footage of Atchampet Police Station for the specified period should be preserved.

Submissions Of Parties :

Petitioners:

● The petitioners alleged that they were prevented from submitting their nomination papers and sought police protection and an alternative opportunity to submit the nominations.

● They submitted that a representation dated 25 October 2026 had been made to the Station House Officer and other higher authorities seeking preservation of CCTV footage.

● They intended to rely on the footage and other material in an election petition to establish that they had reached the nomination centre within the notified period and were prevented from filing their nominations.

Respondents:

● The police stated that no representation seeking protection at the time of filing nominations had been received, that adequate personnel had been deployed at nomination centres, and that action would be taken upon receipt of a complaint or credible information.

● The State Election Commission and Returning Officer contended that, since the elections had been completed, the writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioners' remedy was to file an election petition.

● The respondents relied on the directions of the Supreme Court in Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others.

Court's Observations & Analysis :

Re: Remedy after completion of the election

● Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution barred calling a Panchayat election in question except by an election petition presented before the authority and in the manner provided by State law.

● The Supreme Court in Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others had clarified that candidates alleging that they were prevented from filing nominations by violence could individually challenge the election result through an election petition.

● If a candidate proved through cogent and reliable evidence that they had reached the nomination centre within the notified period but were prevented by force, intimidation or obstruction, the failure could be treated as an improper rejection of the nomination, even if the nomination paper had not been received.

● As the election process had been completed, the reliefs seeking permission to file nominations, extension of time and police protection during the nomination process had become infructuous. The High Court could not reopen or interfere with the completed election process in these proceedings.

● The Court expressly left the truth or otherwise of the petitioners' allegations undecided. (Paras 5–9)

Re: Preservation of CCTV footage

● The petitioners sought preservation of CCTV footage to support their proposed election petition and to substantiate their claim that they had approached the police during the relevant period.

● The Court referred to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and Others concerning the installation, functioning, maintenance and preservation of CCTV systems in police stations.

● The Court directed the concerned police authorities to preserve the available footage for 23 October 2026 between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., and to ensure that it was not erased, overwritten or otherwise destroyed. (Paras 10–11)

Notable Observations: None.

Decision & Directions :

● The writ petition was disposed of. The reliefs relating to submission of nominations, extension of time and police protection during the nomination process were treated as infructuous.

● The petitioners were left at liberty to pursue their remedy by filing an election petition before the competent forum in accordance with law.

● Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 were directed to ensure preservation of the available CCTV footage at Atchampet Police Station dated 23 October 2026 between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions in Paramvir Singh Saini.

● The concerned respondents were directed to take necessary steps to ensure that the footage was not erased, overwritten or otherwise destroyed, and that it was retained in accordance with law.

● No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.