Andhra’s Democracy Counter Was Open. Apparently Not To Candidates

Andhra Pradesh’s ruling alliance has discovered a useful definition of free and fair elections: the election is free, and fairness is available subject to court order.

The Supreme Court directed the State Election Commission to withhold the final candidate list after the YSR Congress made a prima facie case that opposition candidates were prevented from filing nominations. The process was halted across all 100 urban local bodies. The SEC later reopened nominations on October 23 and 24 in Kadapa, Tirupati, Rajampet and Mydukur. These are not exactly the administrative details of a democracy enjoying a quiet afternoon.

The YSRCP claims nearly two-thirds of its candidates were blocked from filing papers. That remains an allegation, not a judicial finding. But it was serious enough for the Supreme Court to examine electronic evidence, pause the process and ask whether the deadline should be extended. The government’s preferred response, meanwhile, was Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu accusing YS Jagan Mohan Reddy of “criminal politics” and calling him a “prolonged litigant operating under the guise of politics”. In this version, the problem is not whether candidates could enter the contest. The problem is that somebody complained about the locked door.

Naidu’s government wants credit for defending democracy while the court is checking whether the nomination counter was accessible. Jagan and the YSRCP, naturally, want the court, central forces, CCTV cameras and an amicus curiae involved, because Andhra’s political class has reached the stage where even a ballot requires a witness statement. The ruling alliance says litigation is damaging Andhra Pradesh’s reputation. No doubt. So is making the Supreme Court investigate whether an election has room for the opposition.

This is not a story about one party’s spotless virtue. The YSRCP has its own record of democratic romance when it held power. But the current government is the one holding the machinery, the police and the calendar. It cannot posture as democracy’s bodyguard while candidates allege they were stopped at the entrance and the Supreme Court asks for the CCTV.

The alliance promised an election. The Supreme Court had to ask whether everyone had been allowed to apply.