Supreme Court Orders Recount in Gram Panchayat Election Dispute: Vijay Bahadur vs. Sunil Kumar (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 6, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 332

Judges: Sanjay Karol, J., Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has addressed the critical issue of electoral integrity in local governance. The question before the Court was whether a recount of votes should be ordered in a Gram Panchayat election where discrepancies and allegations of impropriety have surfaced. This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining the sanctity of the electoral process and ensuring that every vote is accurately counted and reflects the true will of the people.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, delivered the judgment, emphasizing the need to uphold constitutional principles and established norms in the electoral process.

Case Background

The case originates from the Gram Panchayat election for the village Chaka @ Chak, Saidabad, Tehsil Handia, in the District of Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. The election was declared by the State Government on March 17, 2021, with voting scheduled for May 2nd and 3rd, 2021. The appellant, Vijay Bahadur, contested the election but was unsuccessful. His primary grievance stemmed from an inconsistency in the number of votes reported by the Presiding Officer and the final tally recorded in ‘Form 46’.

According to Vijay Bahadur, the Presiding Officer stated that 1194 votes were cast in polling booths 43, 44, and 45. However, Form 46 indicated a total of 1213 votes cast in these booths, a difference of 19 votes. Vijay Bahadur lost the election by a margin of 37 votes, leading him to suspect foul play and request a recount of the votes in the specified polling booths.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, Vijay Bahadur sought a recount by writing to the Election Officer, alleging that votes in his favor were improperly cancelled. When this request was denied, he filed Election Petition No. 0210 of 2021 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 12-C(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after considering the evidence, including testimonies from Vijay Bahadur and other witnesses, ordered a recount of the votes cast at Booth Nos. 43, 44, and 45 on October 31, 2022. This decision was based on the Magistrate’s conclusion that there were sufficient grounds to believe that a recount was necessary to maintain faith in the judicial system and the counting process.

Aggrieved by the Magistrate’s order, Sunil Kumar filed a revision petition, Election Revision No. 146 of 2022, which was dismissed on November 5, 2022. Subsequently, Sunil Kumar filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the recount order.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision at the center of this case is Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. This section outlines the grounds and procedures for questioning the election of a Pradhan or member of a Gram Panchayat.

Section 12-C(1) states:

“12-C. Application for questioning the elections – (1) The election of a person as Pradhan 2 [* * *] or as member of a Gram Panchayat including the election of a person appointed as the Panch of the Nyaya Panchayat under Section 43 shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed on the ground that –
(a) the election has not been a free election by reason that the corrupt practice of bribery or undue influence has extensively prevailed at the election, or
(b) that the result of the election has been materially affected –
i- by the improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination or;
ii- by gross failure to comply with the provisions of this Act or the rules framed thereunder.”

The Supreme Court also considered Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, which imposes a bar on interference by courts in electoral matters. Additionally, Section 12-C(6) of the Act provides a remedy against an order passed therein, i.e., by way of revision.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Vijay Bahadur):

• ✓ The decision of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1249].
• ✓ The order for recount was justified given the averments made in the Election Petition, supported by oral evidence.
• ✓ The principle of secrecy of the ballot is not compromised by the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
• ✓ An order passed under Section 12-C of the Act is final and not open to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the bar in respect of interference by the Courts in electoral matters under Article 243-O.
• ✓ The Act provides a remedy against an order passed therein, i.e., Section 12-C(6) of the Act by way of revision.
• ✓ The High Court erred in entertaining a writ petition against an order that was interlocutory in nature, aimed at doing complete justice between the parties.
• ✓ The Act does not directly provide for the power of recount, but the same is implicit, having regard to the powers contained in Section 12-C.
• ✓ The averments made in the election petition are prima facie correct, and the High Court erred in setting aside the order of recount without adverting to findings of improper acceptance and rejection of ballot papers.

Arguments by the Respondent (Sunil Kumar):

• ✓ The appellant has not produced any document to support his claims, and therefore, the order of recount is on an insufficient basis.
• ✓ The secrecy of ballots should not be violated on flimsy grounds that are frivolous, vague, and indefinite.
• ✓ The respondent filed affidavits of certain persons attesting to the absence of irregularity in the process adopted by the Election Officer.
• ✓ Vinod Kumar, who submitted an affidavit in favor of the recount, was not present at the polling booth since he was scheduled to enter into matrimony on that date.
• ✓ Ajay Kumar, the agent of Vinod Kumar, stated on oath that no irregularity had been committed by the Election Officer.
• ✓ Vinod Kumar’s affidavit was ostensibly false, which is a punishable offense.
• ✓ The High Court, in the absence of any documentary evidence to support the oral submissions made by the appellant, rightly set aside the order of recount.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was justified in ordering a recount of the votes cast.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several precedents to determine the conditions under which a recount of votes is justified.

• ✓ Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai [AIR 1964 SC 1249] (Supreme Court of India): This case lays down the conditions for ordering inspection of ballot papers, emphasizing the need for an adequate statement of material facts and prima facie satisfaction that inspection is necessary to decide the dispute.
• ✓ Vadivelu v. Sundaram [(2000) 8 SCC 355] (Supreme Court of India): This case reiterates that recount of votes should be ordered rarely and only on specific allegations of illegality or irregularity in counting, with proof of improper acceptance or rejection of votes.
• ✓ Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra [(1975) 4 SCC 822] (Supreme Court of India): This case outlines three scenarios when recount would be justified: adequate statement of material facts, prima facie establishment of allegations, and imperative necessity to decide the dispute.
• ✓ Beli Ram Bhalaik v. Behari Lal Khachi [(1975) 4 SCC 417] (Supreme Court of India): This case emphasizes that an order for recount should not be made lightly and requires adequate pleading of material facts and prima facie satisfaction of the necessity to decide the dispute.
• ✓ Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh [1993 Supp (2) SCC 82] (Supreme Court of India): This case underscores the importance of maintaining the secrecy of ballot papers and the need for contemporaneous evidence of irregularity or illegality to justify a recount.
• ✓ Udey Chand v. Surat Singh [(2009) 10 SCC 170] (Supreme Court of India): This case reiterates the basic requirements for permitting scrutiny of ballot papers and ordering a recount, including an adequate statement of material facts and prima facie satisfaction of the necessity to decide the dispute.

Authority Consideration Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, stating that a recount was justified in the present facts. The Court emphasized that when the officer was present and informed the candidate of the number of votes cast, there should not be any difference. The sanctity of each vote has to be protected.

The Court also noted that three of the four candidates in the election submitted affidavits expressing doubts regarding the propriety of the election and supporting a recount of votes. Additionally, there were allegations of deliberate attempts to benefit the ultimate victor, such as the use of police force to remove the appellant from the vicinity of the polling area.

Furthermore, the diary of the Presiding Officer of the polling booths, an essential document recording the casting of votes, could not be found despite a concerted effort. The Court stated that candidates wanting to keep an eye on voting during the day and inspect records of the same is something that cannot be denied to them. If the Presiding Officers’ records are missing and cannot be verified, it can be found that the final conclusion is within the realm of questionability.

The Court concluded that for the reasons stated, including the fact that three of the four candidates questioned the veracity of the election and the manner in which it was conducted, and that important documents pertaining to the election were missing and such absence was unexplained, a recount would be justified.

“Each and every document pertaining to an election is important and all efforts should be made to preserve the same,” the Court noted.

The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the order dated October 31, 2022, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Election Petition No.02010/2021, was restored. The appeal was allowed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to order a recount was influenced by a combination of factors that raised concerns about the integrity of the electoral process. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the sanctity of each vote and ensuring that elections are conducted in accordance with constitutional principles and established norms.

Several key points weighed heavily on the Court’s mind:

• ✓ Discrepancy in Vote Count: The difference between the number of votes informed to the appellant and the final tally in Form 46 raised doubts about the accuracy of the counting process.
• ✓ Doubts Raised by Multiple Candidates: The fact that three of the four candidates questioned the veracity of the election and supported a recount indicated a widespread lack of confidence in the electoral process.
• ✓ Missing Presiding Officer’s Records: The inability to locate the diary of the Presiding Officer, an essential document for verifying the casting of votes, further undermined the credibility of the election.
• ✓ Allegations of Interference: The allegations of deliberate attempts to benefit the ultimate victor, such as the use of police force to remove the appellant from the polling area, suggested potential manipulation of the electoral process.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s logical reasoning for ordering a recount can be summarized as follows:

Issue: Whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was justified in ordering a recount of the votes cast.

Flowchart:

Start → Discrepancy in Vote Count + Doubts Raised by Multiple Candidates + Missing Presiding Officer’s Records + Allegations of Interference → Concerns about Electoral Integrity → Application of Legal Precedents (Ram Sewak Yadav, Vadivelu, Suresh Prasad Yadav, Beli Ram Bhalaik, Satyanarain Dudhani, Udey Chand) → Conclusion: Recount Justified → End

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Electoral integrity is paramount, and any doubts or discrepancies in the counting process must be thoroughly investigated.
• ✓ The absence of essential documents, such as the Presiding Officer’s diary, can raise serious questions about the fairness of an election.
• ✓ Allegations of interference or manipulation in the electoral process must be taken seriously and addressed promptly.
• ✓ Courts have the power to order a recount of votes when there are sufficient grounds to believe that the integrity of the election has been compromised.
• ✓ Candidates and voters have the right to seek a recount of votes if they have reasonable doubts about the accuracy of the counting process.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Registry to communicate a copy of the judgment to the Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, who shall ensure passage of the same to the concerned Magistrate, enabling them to set a date for recount of the result after hearing the parties.

Conclusion

In the case of Vijay Bahadur vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors., the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the importance of maintaining the integrity of the electoral process at the grassroots level. By ordering a recount of votes in the Gram Panchayat election, the Court has sent a clear message that any doubts or discrepancies in the counting process must be thoroughly investigated to ensure that the true will of the people is reflected in the election results. This judgment underscores the need for transparency, accountability, and adherence to constitutional principles in all aspects of the electoral process.