AMARAVATI, November 2, 2026 — Andhra Pradesh Police are verifying 41 election-related incidents reported from 20 districts during Sunday’s Andhra Pradesh civic polls, Director General of Police Harish Kumar Gupta said, as rival parties traded allegations over polling in Kadapa district and the opposition sought a fresh vote in Pulivendula.
The police account, reported by The Times of India, said district officers had been directed to check each complaint, identify those involved and take legal action where warranted. Gupta said polling across the 92 urban local bodies that went to the vote had concluded peacefully apart from a few minor incidents. That assessment sits alongside reports of clashes between supporters of the ruling Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and the opposition Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP), particularly in Pulivendula.
The distinction between an incident being reported and an allegation being proved is important. The figure of 41 represents information received by police and now subject to verification; it is not, by itself, a finding that 41 electoral offences occurred or that any one party was responsible for them. The outcome of the checks, including whether individual complaints lead to registered cases or further action, had not been detailed in the reports reviewed for this article.
The broader election process covered 100 urban local bodies, according to reporting by The Indian Express and PTI. Polling was held in 92 bodies, while candidates were elected unopposed in eight. The contested areas included 13 municipal corporations, 73 municipalities and six nagar panchayats. The elections matter for local government because municipal bodies oversee services such as sanitation, local roads, drainage, water supply and other civic functions that directly affect residents.
Pulivendula, in Kadapa district and the home constituency of former chief minister and YSRCP president Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, became the main focus of the dispute. Reddy alleged that his party’s polling agents were allowed into only 10 of the municipality’s 80 booths, while agents were kept out of the remaining 70. He said their authorisation papers were torn and demanded that polling be cancelled and repeated across all 80 booths.
According to The Indian Express, Reddy submitted a letter to the municipal returning officer seeking intervention. He also accused officials and police of obstructing voters and favouring the ruling party, and said the alleged problems extended beyond Pulivendula to other locations, including Jammalamadugu, Chittoor, Macherla, Tadipatri and Madanapalle. These claims remain allegations made by the opposition; the accounts reviewed did not establish them as proven findings by election authorities.
The TDP rejected the allegations. Andhra Pradesh Finance Minister P. Keshav said in a statement reported by The Indian Express that the elections had been conducted freely with police intervention, and that people had turned out to vote. TDP leaders also accused YSRCP workers of intimidating voters and disrupting polling. The two parties’ competing accounts underline why complaints need to be assessed against polling records, statements from presiding officers, CCTV or webcasting footage where available, and any other evidence held by election officials.
Police reported stone-throwing between TDP and YSRCP supporters in Pulivendula. Separate complaints were also made about the treatment of polling agents and journalists covering the election. The New Indian Express reported allegations that journalists were attacked and equipment damaged; the available reports did not establish the identity of any attacker or provide a final police finding on those complaints. Such incidents, if substantiated, would raise concerns not only about electoral conduct but also about journalists’ ability to report on public events safely.
Gupta said security arrangements had been made across sensitive and highly sensitive locations. According to The Times of India, police used drones, videography, body-worn cameras and the Samartha App to monitor polling and deter malpractice. The DGP also instructed district officials to ensure that ballot boxes were transported safely to designated strong rooms under police protection. Security was to remain in place until counting began.
The police have said that complaints will be verified and legal action taken against those found responsible. That process is separate from the returning officer’s responsibility to consider requests for repolling and from the State Election Commission’s authority over the conduct of local elections. A demand for a fresh poll does not automatically result in one; election authorities must assess the facts and apply the relevant rules before deciding whether polling in any booth or ward should be repeated.
The published election schedule provides for repolling on Monday, November 2, if it is ordered, with counting scheduled for Tuesday, November 3. The reports reviewed for this draft did not confirm that a repoll had been ordered in Pulivendula. The status of Reddy’s demand, any formal decision by the returning officer or State Election Commission, and the outcome of the police verification remain important developments to watch through the day.
For residents, the immediate issue is whether the voting process and the handling of complaints can be demonstrated to have met the standards required for a fair local election. Municipal elections often receive less national attention than Assembly or parliamentary contests, but their results determine the leadership of bodies responsible for everyday civic services. A disputed result can affect the legitimacy of those local institutions, particularly where parties allege that voters or authorised polling agents were prevented from participating.
There are several separate questions for the authorities to answer. First, what happened in each of the 41 incidents reported to police, and which complaints are supported by evidence? Second, were polling agents properly accredited and permitted to enter the booths to which they were assigned? Third, do the records support the allegations of obstruction, bogus voting or intimidation, or do they contradict them? Finally, does any verified irregularity meet the legal threshold for repolling in a specific booth or area? Publicly documented findings would help distinguish substantiated complaints from partisan claims.
Police monitoring technology can assist investigations, but the presence of cameras or digital tools does not by itself resolve a dispute. Officials still need to preserve recordings, maintain chain of custody for relevant material, record statements and explain how evidence supports a decision. The same standard should apply to allegations against either party. An impartial, evidence-based review is necessary both to identify wrongdoing and to avoid treating an unverified claim as proof of guilt.
The political contest is likely to continue while the complaints are examined. YSRCP has demanded a repoll in Pulivendula, while TDP leaders maintain that the election was conducted fairly and accuse their opponents of creating disorder. Neither party’s public claims should be treated as an official finding. The decisive information will come from the election authorities’ decisions, police verification and any formal cases or orders that follow.
As of the latest reports available for this article, police were checking the 41 incidents, ballot boxes were being secured for counting, and the dispute over Pulivendula had not been resolved in the public accounts reviewed. The next clear milestones are any decision on repolling, updates on complaints involving polling agents or journalists, and the start of counting on November 3. Until authorities publish their findings, the allegations should remain attributed and the outcome should not be presumed.
SOURCE: PTI