Disputes Over Election Irregularities Must Be Raised Through Election Petition, Not Writ Petition: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citing Article 243-O - 2025-09-03

AP High Court Dismisses Plea for Repoll, Cites Constitutional Bar on Interfering in Electoral Matters

Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh – The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a significant ruling on electoral jurisprudence, has dismissed writ petitions seeking a repoll in the Vontimitta and Pulivendula Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (ZPTC) by-elections. Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad held that allegations of electoral malpractice, such as booth capturing and rigging, constitute "disputed questions of fact" that cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition and must be challenged through a formal election petition before the designated Election Tribunal.

The court underscored the constitutional bar under Article 243-O(b), which explicitly states that an election can only be called into question via an election petition.

---

Background of the Case

The petitions were filed by candidates challenging the by-elections held on August 12, 2025. They alleged that the State Election Commission (SEC) failed to act on their numerous complaints regarding widespread irregularities. The petitioners claimed that supporters of the ruling party engaged in booth capturing, voter impersonation, and intimidation of their election agents across multiple polling stations. They sought a directive for the SEC to examine CCTV footage and order a repoll in all affected polling stations, not just the two (Polling Stations 3 & 14 in Pulivendula) where the SEC had already ordered a re-election based on the Returning Officer's report.

Arguments of the Petitioners

Senior Counsel Sri P. Veera Reddy, representing the petitioners, argued that the SEC's inaction amounted to an abdication of its statutory duty to ensure free and fair elections. He presented photographs and other material as evidence of rigging and impersonation.

To counter the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, the petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Union Territory of Ladakh Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (2023). They contended that constitutional courts are duty-bound to intervene when there is unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb the level playing field in an election. They also cited People’s Union for Civil Liberties (2013) to emphasize the sanctity of the right to vote in a democracy.

Arguments of the Respondents

Representing the unofficial respondents, Senior Counsel Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, along with Advocate General Sri Dammalapati Srinivas for the State, vehemently opposed the petitions. Their primary argument was that the petitions were not maintainable due to a clear constitutional and statutory bar.

They invoked Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution and Section 233 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , both of which mandate that the exclusive remedy for challenging an election is through an election petition filed after the results are declared. They argued that the petitioners' allegations were "disputed questions of fact" requiring a full-fledged trial with evidence, which is the function of an Election Tribunal, not a High Court exercising writ jurisdiction.

The respondents distinguished the Ladakh case, noting that it pertained to the pre-election issue of symbol allotment and did not involve adjudicating factual disputes over polling irregularities. They cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Boddula Krishnaiah and Another Vs. State Election Commissioner, A.P (1996), which firmly established that courts should not interfere with the election process once it has commenced.

Court's Analysis and Decision

Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad concurred with the respondents, finding a clear constitutional and statutory mandate against judicial interference in electoral processes through writ petitions. The court observed that the petitioners’ claims required an in-depth factual inquiry.

> "The Writ Petitioners herein have placed on record various photographs and also the pen drives in support of their contentions that several people who are not the residents of territorial constituency have participated in the voting, which amounts to rigging. These are however, issues relating to facts which can be decided only by the competent Election Tribunal by adducing oral and documentary evidence," the judgment stated.

The court held that the precedent set in the Ladakh symbol case was not applicable to the present facts, which involved allegations of malpractice during the polling process. It found the precedents cited by the respondents, particularly Boddula Krishnaiah , to be directly relevant.

Final Verdict

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, concluding they lacked merit. It affirmed that the proper course of action for the petitioners is to file an election petition before the appropriate Election Tribunal as prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals) Rules, 1995.

The court granted the petitioners the liberty to approach the Election Tribunal to pursue their claims, thereby upholding the established legal framework that ring-fences the electoral process from premature judicial intervention and channels all disputes to a specialized post-election adjudicatory body.