Back
Ballot Tampering Doesn't Entire Election: Orders BCD Counting Resumption
In a significant judgement that brings stability to the long-pending (BCD) elections, the has dismissed demands for a fresh election, ruling that isolated instances of ballot tampering do not undermine the entire democratic exercise. A Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia ordered the resumption of vote counting, emphasizing that must be managed through regulatory safeguards rather than the drastic measure of a re-poll.
A Timeline of Uncertainty The dispute arose following the BCD elections held between February 21 and . After a contentious counting process, an incident on , revealed that a counting staff member—later identified as Mr. Nikhil Kumar—had manipulated preferences on certain ballot papers. This discovery forced a halt to the counting and led to an FIR. Aggrieved candidates approached the , and subsequently, the , which transferred the petitions to the for a day-to-day adjudication.
Arguments from the Bench and Bar Petitioners, led by various advocate candidates, argued that the admitted manipulation and the presence of the accused during the first two weeks of counting proved systemic failure. They asserted that a re-poll was the only way to restore voter confidence.
Conversely, the (BCD) and contesting respondents argued that the election process, governed by the and , must not be interdicted. Citing landmark precedents like and , they maintained that once an election commences, should be minimal, and any grievances regarding specific ballots should be addressed via an post-result.
The Court’s Reasoning: Safeguards Over Resets The Court drew a clear distinction between isolated malpractice and structural invalidity. Rejecting the demand for a re-poll, the Bench observed that the irregularities were not extensive enough to void the entire mandate.
The Court held that ballot papers showing erasures, overwriting, or unauthorized additions should be treated as "doubtful." It directed that these ballots be set aside, marked as "doubtful," and placed before the Additional Solicitor General for adjudication.
"This procedure shall ensure that effect is given to the voter’s intention without causing prejudice to any candidate,"
the bench noted.
Furthermore, the Court dismissed the claim that first-preference votes were tainted, noting that no tampering was possible during the initial phase, as the process was conducted under continuous CCTV and virtual surveillance of candidates.
Key Observations *
"We, therefore, do not consider it appropriate to direct a re-poll for the BCD Election, as the incident of manipulation of ballot papers did not
the electoral process in its entirety."
*
"Any ballot paper bearing erasures, overwriting, corrections, additions, or other suspicious variations shall be segregated and kept in sealed bundles or packets marked as '
'."
*
"This procedure shall ensure that effect is given to the voter’s intention without causing prejudice to any candidate."
Moving Forward: Order for Transparency To prevent further controversy, the Court mandated enhanced procedural safeguards. Counting must now include high-resolution cameras placed above counting tables, and all ballot papers must be secured in lockable boxes during breaks. The Returning Officer is mandated to declare the resumption schedule 24 hours in advance.
While the Court has paved the way for the declaration of results, it clarified that its observations are . Aggrieved candidates retain the right to challenge the results through a formal after the final outcome is announced, ensuring that the legal process remains open to scrutiny without stalling the democratic function of the Bar Council.
