Case Name: VIJAY BAHADUR Vs.SUNIL KUMAR & ORS
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.14311 OF 2024
Date: March 6, 2025.
Quorum: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant, Vijay Bahadur, had opposed the election to the post of Gram Pradhan by the respondent, Sunil Kumar. The latter was elected on counting of votes. Bahadur challenged the election on the basis of irregularities in counting of votes at three booths (Booth Nos. 43, 44, and 45). With precisely this, he made a protest that the Presiding Officer’s initial count was 1194 votes whereas the final count as recorded in Form 46 was 1213 votes. In addition, such important election records as the diary of the Presiding Officer could not be found. Bahadur requested the recount under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
The plea of Bahadur was accepted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) and the recount was ordered. Sunil Kumar objected to the order by way of revision petition, which was rejected. He moved a writ petition to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which quashed the SDM’s order on the basis that there was no valid reason for ordering the recount. Bahadur, being dissatisfied with the above order, went to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 136 of the Constitution.
ISSUES
- Whether the variations in the final count necessitated a recount?
- Whether lost election records were enough reason to challenge the legitimacy of the election?
- Whether the High Court was wrong in reversing the SDM’s direction for a recount?
- How the ballots’ secrecy principles and electoral fairness principles are to be balanced where there are accusations of irregularities?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Article 324: Empowers the Election Commission of India with conducting free and fair elections, thus the need for electoral integrity.
The U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 Section 12-C: That provides the basis by which an election of the Panchayat may be questioned on the grounds of the vote count being done irregularly, corrupt practices, or wrong rejection/acceptance of votes. It further empowers the prescribed authority-the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in this case-to direct a recount upon being satisfied that such may be warranted.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 Section 100(1)(d)(iii) & (iv): That declares elections void in case of improper counting of votes materially affecting the result. Even while the Act operates mainly in respect of parliamentary and assembly elections, the guidelines it lays are often followed by the courts in respect of local body elections.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT CONTENTION:
1.) That inconsistency between the oral count of the Presiding Officer (1194) and the final count (1213) raises a suspicion of manipulation
2.) The apparent sudden disappearance of essential election documents-the diary of the Presiding Officer-casts doubt on the whole electoral process.
3.) In such instances of irregularities, all judicial precedents would favor the taking of a recount of the vote.
4.) While equally relevant, the secrecy of the ballot cannot be an insurmountable barrier to the discovery of potential fraud.
RESPONDENT CONTENTION
1.) A mere discrepancy from numbers cannot automatically justify a recount.
2.) The secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct and cannot be just lightly breached..
3.) The margin of victory (37 votes) was greater than the alleged discrepancy (19 votes) thus rendering the call for a recount unnecessary
4.) The High Court thus correctly quashed a recourse in SDM to order a recount when no potent prima facie evidence of malpractice was brought to justify such a request.
ANALYSIS
To decide this case, the Supreme Court relied on important precedents:
- According to the case of Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai (1964), mere suspicion is insufficient and that there has to be specific allegation or evidence for ordering a recount.
- Vadivelu v. Sundaram very much held that there shall be some substantial proof of miscounting to be able to count again.
- Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra therefore established that grounds for. recount must include clear material facts;prima facie evidence; and necessity for justice.
- The case of Beli Ram Bhalaik v. Behari Lal Khachi retained the confidentiality of the ballot but permitted counting again if integrity in elections was in question.
The principles of law as already stated in this judgment were applied here by the Court to come to the following conclusions:
There was evidence by way of allegations and testimonies that supported the appellant’s claims regarding the allegations of vote count inconsistencies. The missing records of the election constituted a very serious breach of process, thereby justifying a deeper investigation. The order for a recount was based on reasonable fears about fairness and was therefore not arbitrary. Where irregularities were proved, electoral integrity had the primacy over complete secrecy of the ballot.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court ruling reinstating the SDM’s order for a recount, setting aside the order. The court held that public confidence in the electoral process was greater than the secrecy of the ballot where there are serious allegations of miscounting. The order reaffirmed the significance of maintaining election records and embracing transparent electoral processes.
CONCLUSION
The ruling in Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar is a strict judicial test for a recount, affirming that mere allegations will not do, unless these are reinforced by concrete evidence. The Court reaffirmed, reiterating the secrecy of the ballot rule, that secrecy of the ballot should never be allowed to be used as a mask for further alleged irregularities in the electoral process. This case lays down a very important precedent under Indian election law, illuminating the role of the judiciary in maintaining democratic processes by ensuring transparency, correctness, and accountability in the counting of votes.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY MARTHALA JOSHIKA REDDY
