Supreme Court Restores Recount Order, Directs Recount Where Ballot Records Are Missing and Candidates Raise Doubts

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard an appeal by Vijay Bahadur against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had set aside an order of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate directing a recount of votes in a Gram Pradhan election in Saidabad tehsil, Prayagraj district. The challenge concerned a discrepancy between the number of votes orally communicated by the Presiding Officer and the figures recorded in Form 46 for polling booths 43, 44 and 45.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 27 January 2023 and restored the SDM’s direction dated 31 October 2022 for a recount. The Court held that while the secrecy of the ballot remained sacrosanct, the well‑settled tests for permitting inspection or recount had been satisfied on the facts of the case — three of four candidates had expressed doubts about the tally, the Presiding Officer’s diary and other contemporaneous records could not be located, and there were material circumstances suggesting possible interference. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The Court would be justified in ordering a recount of the ballot papers only where: (1) the election‑petition contains an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are founded; (2) on the basis of evidence adduced such allegations are prima facie established, affording a good ground for believing that there has been a mistake in counting; and (3) the court trying the petition is prima facie satisfied that the making of such an order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties.” The Court also noted that “each vote has its own value irrespective of its effect in the final outcome of the election. Its sanctity has to be protected.”

Background

The State government had notified the Gram Pradhan election for Gram Panchayat Chaka @ Chak (Saidabad) with polling on 2–3 May 2021. The appellant alleged that the Presiding Officer orally informed him that booths 43–45 recorded 1,194 votes but Form 46 showed 1,213 votes, a differential of 19 ballots; the appellant asserted that those votes had been brought in from outside and that votes in his favour were improperly cancelled. He first wrote to the Election Officer seeking a recount; when that request was refused he filed Election Petition No. 0210 of 2021 under Section 12‑C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The Sub‑Divisional Magistrate recorded evidence (including oral testimony and affidavits) and directed a recount, observing that there were “sufficient grounds to get the recounting done”.

Respondent Sunil Kumar challenged the SDM order by revision and then by writ petition before the High Court. The High Court set aside the recount order on the ground that the petition lacked contemporaneous documentary evidence to support the oral assertions and that the order had been based on vague allegations. The respondents relied upon affidavits asserting the election was regular and emphasised the principle of ballot secrecy. The appellant contended before this Court that the SDM had acted within the framework of Section 12‑C and that precedent authorised recounts where material facts were pleaded and prima facie established.

In its analysis the Supreme Court reviewed authoritative decisions including Hussain Kamil Kidwai, Vadivelu, Suresh Prasad Yadav and others setting out the limited circumstances in which recounts or inspection of ballot papers may be ordered. Applying that law to the record, the Court found the SDM was justified because three of the four candidates had raised contemporaneous doubt, critical documents (including the Presiding Officer’s diary) were missing and unexplained, and there were allegations of interference with polling. The Court directed the Registry to communicate the judgment to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to enable the concerned Magistrate to fix a date for recount after hearing parties. The writ was allowed insofar as it had set aside the SDM order; the SDM order was restored and the appeal was allowed. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 332 (Civil Appeal No. 14311 of 2024) Case Title: Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Vishnu Pandey; Ashok Kumar Mishra (as recorded in earlier proceedings) For the Respondent(s): K.K. Shukla; O.P. Mishra (as recorded in earlier proceedings)