The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has ruled that an election petition alleging substantive irregularities in vote tabulation cannot be summarily dismissed merely because the petitioner failed to demand a recount during the counting process. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad affirmed the decision of the Election Tribunal, which had earlier refused to reject an election petition filed by Hitesh Chandrakar challenging the results of the Zila Panchayat election in Mahasamund. The court’s order clarifies the limitations of exercising powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the context of election disputes.

The dispute originated from the Zila Panchayat election held on February 23, 2025, where Nayan Patel was declared the returned candidate. Hitesh Chandrakar, a fellow candidate, subsequently filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, alleging that discrepancies between the internal calculation charts and the final tabulation documents suggested tampering or manipulation in the results of Polling Booth No. 187. Chandrakar argued that he became aware of these discrepancies only after obtaining a certified copy of the tabulation chart several days after the election, which rendered an immediate request for a recount during the counting process impossible.

Nayan Patel sought the rejection of the entire petition, citing Rule 80(1) and Rule 80(5) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. He contended that because Chandrakar or his authorized agents did not formally apply for a recount on the day of the counting, the election petition was legally unsustainable and should be thrown out at the threshold. The Election Tribunal rejected this application, leading the returned candidate to approach the High Court, asserting that the absence of a contemporaneous recount request acted as an absolute legal bar.

In its judgment, the High Court emphasized that the scope of Order VII Rule 11 is narrow and focuses solely on the contents of the plaint, requiring courts to read the document as a whole rather than isolating specific procedural omissions. Justice Prasad noted that determining whether an election petition discloses a valid cause of action necessitates an assessment of all material facts, including allegations of record manipulation and discrepancies.

“At the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, an election petition must be read as a whole, confining to its pleadings, to see if cause of action is disclosed,” the court observed. The Bench held that the specific allegations regarding overwriting in Proforma-19 and the variance between calculation and tabulation records constituted "triable issues." According to the court, these claims involve disputed questions of fact that require a full trial and evidence, rather than a summary dismissal at the preliminary stage.

The High Court further clarified that the failure to seek a recount at the counting station does not automatically invalidate an election challenge if the petition provides a detailed factual foundation for subsequent investigations. The court noted: “The limited inquiry at this stage is whether the averments contained in the election petition, taken as a whole and assumed to be true... disclose a cause of action or whether the election petition is ex facie barred by law.” By distinguishing this case from others where petitions lacked necessary material facts, the court underscored that Chandrakar had established a sufficient "bundle of facts" to warrant a substantive adjudication on the merits.

The High Court also addressed the petitioner's argument regarding the prior actions of the District Election Officer. While the District Election Officer had previously declined to order a recount, citing a lack of jurisdictional authority, the court clarified that this administrative refusal did not operate as a legal bar against the judicial process under the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. The proceedings before an Election Tribunal are distinct from the administrative tasks performed during the counting process, and the Tribunal is empowered to examine the integrity of the election process regardless of how earlier complaints were handled by election officials.

Procedurally, the case has already moved beyond the initial stages. The Election Tribunal has reportedly framed issues and recorded evidence, and the matter is currently at the final hearing stage. The High Court stressed that the progress of the case reinforces the necessity of deciding the petition based on evidence rather than relying on a "selective reading of one circumstance." By affirming the Tribunal’s decision, the High Court ensured that the allegations of manipulation will be subjected to the scrutiny of the judicial process.

The judgment makes clear that its findings are confined strictly to the threshold issue of the application under Order VII Rule 11. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the actual validity of the election or the truth of the allegations raised by the petitioner. The final determination of whether the election result was materially affected by the alleged irregularities remains the sole purview of the Election Tribunal, which will now proceed to finalize the matter in accordance with the law. With the High Court’s affirmation, the challenge to the Zila Panchayat election result will proceed to its conclusion, leaving both parties to present their final arguments on the evidence collected during the tribunal proceedings.