1. Election for Gram Pradhan — Discrepancy in vote counts — Application for recount under Section 12-C(1) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. (Para 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 463
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Vijay Bahadur - Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14311 Of 2024
Decided On : 06-03-2025
Important Points
The court emphasized that discrepancies in election vote counts and missing documents justify a recount to uphold electoral integrity.
Subject
Election Law - Electoral Disputes
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.136, Art.243(o)
HARYANA PANCHAYATS RAJ ACT: S.176
UTTAR PRADESH PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT: S.12(c)(1)
HARYANA PANCHAYATS RAJ ACT: S.176
UTTAR PRADESH PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT: S.12(c)(1)
Headnote
(A) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Section 12-C - Election dispute - The appellant challenged the election results for the position of Gram Pradhan, alleging discrepancies in vote counts and seeking a recount. The High Court initially set aside the recount order, citing lack of supporting evidence. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 19)
(B) Election integrity - The court emphasized the importance of free and fair elections, stating that discrepancies in vote counts must be addressed to uphold democratic principles. (Paras 14, 15, 18)
(C) Secrecy of ballot - The court reiterated that recounts should not compromise the secrecy of ballots and must be justified by substantial evidence. (Paras 13.1, 13.2, 13.3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant contested the election results for Gram Pradhan, alleging that the number of votes reported differed from what was communicated by the Presiding Officer. The recount was initially ordered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but was challenged by the respondent in a writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the absence of crucial election documents and the support of other candidates for a recount justified restoring the recount order.
Issues: The main issues included whether the recount order was justified and if the High Court erred in setting it aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that discrepancies in vote counts and missing election documents warranted a recount to ensure electoral integrity.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the recount order is restored.
(B) Election integrity - The court emphasized the importance of free and fair elections, stating that discrepancies in vote counts must be addressed to uphold democratic principles. (Paras 14, 15, 18)
(C) Secrecy of ballot - The court reiterated that recounts should not compromise the secrecy of ballots and must be justified by substantial evidence. (Paras 13.1, 13.2, 13.3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant contested the election results for Gram Pradhan, alleging that the number of votes reported differed from what was communicated by the Presiding Officer. The recount was initially ordered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate but was challenged by the respondent in a writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the absence of crucial election documents and the support of other candidates for a recount justified restoring the recount order.
Issues: The main issues included whether the recount order was justified and if the High Court erred in setting it aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that discrepancies in vote counts and missing election documents warranted a recount to ensure electoral integrity.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the recount order is restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR Mr. Sushant Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mangal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Lomes, Adv. Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv. Ms. Radha Rajput, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sweta Rani, AOR Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ruchil Raj, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankur Yadav, AOR Mr. Sushant Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mangal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Lomes, Adv. Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv. Ms. Radha Rajput, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sweta Rani, AOR Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ruchil Raj, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether a recount is justified based on oral assertions of discrepancies and missing records versus the requirement for documentary evidence and ballot secrecy. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Recounts are not granted as a matter of course but are justified when material facts are pleaded and essential election records are missing. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Order for recount of votes restored. (Para 19 , 20 )
5. Does the loss of official election records justify an order for a recount?
Yes. When essential documents, such as the Presiding Officer's diary recording the casting of votes, are missing and the absence is unexplained, the final count becomes questionable, justifying a recount to protect the sanctity of the vote. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Karol, J.)
PRELUDE
| “At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper—no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of that point.” - Winston Churchill - House of Commons, 31 October 1944 |
1. In the famous Gettysburg Address1[Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum- https://presidentlincoln.illinois.gov/gettysburg] delivered on 19th November, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln uttered possibly the best description of democracy there ever would be –
“government of the people, by the people, for the people”
People, unquestionably, are at the center of this conception. The Indian Constitutional vision exemplifies this position. Right from the inception of democratic rule, universal adult franchise has found its place in our system of governance. Each election upholding these cherished values of public participation, equality and integrity of the vote is a testament to the vision of the founders. Each and every citizen, when it comes to choosing representatives in the parliamentary system, is indeed equal, when in other scenarios they may not be so, for a variety of reasons - class and caste divisions that are still deeply entrenched, gender inequality, lack of awareness and opportunities for disabled persons, etc.
This momentary equality assumes further importance as it signifies the achievability of the aspiration of equality for all through constitutional mechanisms. Granted that equality in other spheres cannot only be a product of constitutional action, and have to be accompanied by social change, but nonetheless, the strength of constitutional action is manifested thereby.
A.M Ahmadi, CJI, writing for a Constitution Bench in T.N Seshan v. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 611, while concerned with an Ordinance promulgated by the President of India being Ordinance (No. 32 of 1993) entitled “The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Amendment Ordinance, 1993” to amend “The Chief Election Commissioner and other Commissioners (Conditions of Service) Act, 1991” challenged by the then incumbent Chief Election Commissioner, observed :
“10. The Preamble of our Constitution proclaims that we are a Democratic Republic. Democracy being the basic feature of our constitutional set-up, there can be no two opinions that free and fair elections to our legislative bodies alone would guarantee the growth of a healthy democracy in the country…”
More recently, this Court in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, (2023) 6 SCC 161, the majority speaking through K.M Joseph J., observed :
“124. Unlike demands of a formal democracy, the hallmark of a substantive democracy and if we may say so, a liberal democracy must be borne in mind. Democracy is inextricably intertwined with power to the people. The ballot, is more potent than the most powerful gun. Democracy facilitates a peaceful revolution at the hands of the common man if elections are held in a free and fair manner. Elections can be conflated with a non- violent coup capable of unseating the most seemingly powerful governing parties, if they do not perform to fulfil the aspirations of the governed. Democracy is meaningful only if the sublime goals enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution receive the undivided attention of the rulers, namely, social, political and economic justice. The concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity must not be strange bedfellows to the ruling class. Secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution must inform all actions of the State, and therefore, cannot be spurned but must be observed in letter and spirit. Democracy can be achieved only when the governing dispensation sincerely endeavours to observe the fundamental rights in letter and spirit. Democracy also, needless to say, would become fragile and may co
