Supreme Court Halts High Court’s Fingerprint Hunt in Tense Village Sarpanch Poll Battle

In a swift intervention, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that sought expert fingerprint analysis in a bitterly contested election for Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khalila Majra, Panipat. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the remand, restoring the writ petition to the High Court for decision on the existing record alone. Appellant Rakam Singh, the original election petitioner, challenged the High Court's directive to revisit allegations of double voting by respondent Amit, who won via draw of lots after a 302-302 tie in the November 2022 polls.

From Dead Heat to Double-Voting Drama

The dispute erupted after the 02.11.2022 elections, where Rakam Singh and Amit each polled 302 votes. Amit emerged victorious through a draw of lots, prompting Rakam Singh to file Election Petition No. EP/02/2022 on 09.11.2022. He alleged corrupt practices, including double polling via forged thumb impressions on the voter list.

The Election Tribunal partly allowed the petition on 10.11.2023, finding four votes cast twice, setting aside Amit's election, and ordering fresh polls. The First Appellate Court affirmed this on 12.03.2024. Amit then approached the High Court via CWP No. 7443 of 2024, which on 04.02.2025 quashed both lower orders and remanded the case for voter testimony, relative statements, and fingerprint bureau comparison of disputed thumb impressions.

Rakam Singh appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal arising from SLP(C) No. 25100/2025), arguing the remand improperly introduced new evidence.

Appellant's Stand: Stick to the Record

Rakam Singh's counsel urged the apex court to uphold the concurrent findings of double voting based on the trial evidence. They contended the High Court overstepped by mandating fresh witness summoning and expert reports—steps neither party sought before the Tribunal. Such directions, they argued, filled procedural lacunae impermissible in election petitions, which demand swift disposal on led evidence.

Respondent's Push: Demand for Forensic Clarity

Amit defended the High Court's remand, highlighting the Tribunal's failure to verify thumb impressions scientifically or confront voters with disputed signatures. Paras 16-18 of the impugned order criticized the Tribunal for "ill-made conclusions" based on "pure surmises," insisting on voter/relative testimony and fingerprint expert input for "completest truth."

Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: No Room for Afterthought Evidence

The bench dissected the High Court's approach, emphasizing election petitions' strict evidentiary bounds. "The Election Petition is to be decided on the basis of evidence available on record as may be led by the parties," the judges noted, rejecting "sweeping directions to call for witnesses and expert evidence when neither of the parties had raised any such issue before the Tribunal." They underscored "no scope of filling up of lacuna in proceedings relating to Election Petition," distinguishing it from ordinary civil suits.

No precedents were explicitly cited, but the ruling reinforces settled law on election disputes' summary nature, prioritizing record-based adjudication to prevent endless remands.

Key Observations

  • On High Court's Overreach : "The High Court ought not to have issued such directions for leading evidence as the Election Petition is to be decided on the basis of evidence available on record as may be led by the parties."
  • Rejecting Lacuna-Filling : "There is no scope of filling up of lacuna in proceedings relating to Election Petition."
  • Remand Critique : "The appeal ought to have been decided on the basis of the material available before it and there could not have been such sweeping directions..."

Fresh Hearing, No New Evidence – And Urgency for 2027 Polls

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal on 20.03.2026, quashing the High Court's remand and restoring CWP No. 7443 of 2024 "to be heard and decided on merits afresh based on material available on record." All contentions remain open, with a nudge for priority hearing given the Panchayat term ends in 2027. Parties must cooperate fully.

This decision streamlines election litigation, barring post-trial evidence injections that could derail timely resolutions. It safeguards lower court findings unless patently flawed, potentially stabilizing local body polls nationwide by curbing protracted remands.