Minor Procedural Discrepancies Not Materially Affecting Election Result Are 'Irregularities', Not 'Illegalities' & Can't Void Election U/S 100(1)(d) of RP Act: Karnataka High Court - 2025-10-09

Karnataka High Court Upholds Kumta MLA's Election, Dismisses Recount Plea Citing Lack of 'Material Effect'

Dharwad, Karnataka - The Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice V. Srishananda, has dismissed an election petition filed by defeated JD(S) candidate Mr. Suraj Naik Soni challenging the victory of BJP's Mr. Dinakar Keshav Shetty in the 2023 Kumta Assembly constituency election. The court held that minor procedural discrepancies in the electoral process do not warrant setting aside an election unless it is proven that they "materially affected" the final result.

The judgment distinguishes between a procedural 'irregularity,' which does not fundamentally compromise the fairness of the process, and an 'illegality,' which constitutes a significant breach of law.

Case Background

In the May 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections, Mr. Dinakar Keshav Shetty was declared the winner of the No. 78-Kumta constituency by a margin of 676 votes over his closest rival, Mr. Suraj Naik Soni. Mr. Soni filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, seeking a recount of all EVM votes and postal ballots, and for the election of Mr. Shetty to be declared void.

Petitioner's Arguments: Allegations of Widespread Irregularities

Mr. Soni, the petitioner, raised several key arguments challenging the integrity of the election process:

• Postal Ballots: He claimed that 301 postal ballots cast in his favour were improperly rejected and that 360 ballots counted for Mr. Shetty should have been invalidated due to non-attestation as required by election rules.
• EVM Discrepancies: The petitioner alleged that the Control Units (CUs), Balloting Units (BUs), and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) units used in several polling stations did not match the official randomization and reserve lists provided by the election authorities.
• Uncounted Votes: He contended that due to mismatched CU numbers in Form 17C (Part I and Part II) for polling stations 153, 196, and 208, a total of 1,824 votes polled in these stations were never counted.
• Unauthorized VVPAT: It was argued that the VVPAT used in Polling Station No. 39, which recorded 1000 votes, was not from the authorized list, rendering those votes void.

Respondent's Defence: No Material Impact on Outcome

The winning candidate, Mr. Shetty, countered that the petition lacked material facts and was based on vague allegations. His defence, led by Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy, argued:

• The petitioner and his agents failed to raise timely written objections regarding the counting of postal ballots, making the claims an afterthought.
• The discrepancies in EVM unit numbers were due to legitimate replacements from the reserve pool, a standard procedure to handle malfunctioning equipment.
• Crucially, even if irregularities occurred in the specified polling stations, they did not materially affect the election outcome. In fact, an analysis of the votes in the contested booths showed that the petitioner had gained a cumulative lead over the respondent, thereby suffering no prejudice.

Court's Analysis and Judgment

Justice V. Srishananda meticulously analyzed the evidence, including the testimony of the petitioner (PW1) and the Returning Officer (PW2). The court made several key findings that led to the dismissal of the petition.

"It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that every irregularity would not be termed as illegality. There lies a thin line of difference between irregularity and illegality. But that thin line is subtle in nature... An irregularity which is fundamental in nature often amounts to illegality wherein it goes to the very root of the matter vitiating the very process resulting in injustice." - Excerpt from the Judgment

The court found:

• Postal Ballot Claims Dismissed: The court held the allegations regarding postal ballots unsubstantiated, noting the "categorical admission" by the petitioner and the Returning Officer that no written objections were filed during the counting process. The petitioner's inability to even name his counting agent for postal ballots further weakened his case.

• EVM Replacements were Procedural Irregularities, Not Illegalities: The court accepted the Returning Officer's testimony that the replaced CU, BU, and VVPAT units were sourced from the official reserve stock (buffer) provided by the Election Commission. It noted that these machines are not "freely available units in the open market," dismissing any inference of foul play.

• No Material Effect on Result: This was the central pillar of the court's reasoning. The petitioner himself admitted during cross-examination that in the polling stations where EVM units were replaced, he had secured more votes than the respondent. This demonstrated that the procedural deviations did not cause him any prejudice or "materially affect" the final result in a manner that would justify voiding the election under Section 100(1)(d) of the RP Act.

"In other words, when the petitioner has secured more votes where respective units have been replaced, should not have any grievance that because of the replacing of respective control unit, ballot unit and VVPAT has worked detrimental to his interest and the same cannot be countenanced in law." - Excerpt from the Judgment

Final Decision

Concluding that the petitioner failed to prove that the alleged procedural lapses amounted to illegalities that materially impacted the election's outcome, the High Court dismissed the election petition in its entirety, thereby upholding the election of Mr. Dinakar Keshav Shetty as the MLA for the Kumta constituency. No order as to costs was made.