Supreme Court: Each Vote Has Its Own Value Irrespective Of Its Effect In Final Outcome Of An Election; Its Sanctity Has To Be Protected
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had quashed the Order for a recount of votes in the election for Gram Pradhan.
The Supreme Court has observed that each vote has its own value irrespective of its effect in the final outcome of the election which is why its sanctity has to be protected.
The Court set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had quashed the Order for a recount of votes in the election for Gram Pradhan on the grounds that the recount was ordered without any documentary evidence. The Supreme Court restored the Order for recount, finding that the allegations of discrepancies in vote counting, missing electoral records, and affidavits submitted by three of the four candidates raised substantial concerns regarding the fairness of the election process.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “When the officer was present there and he informed the candidate, appellant herein, of the number of votes cast, why should there be any difference? We have already observed that each vote has its own value irrespective of its effect in the final outcome of the election. Its sanctity has to be protected. It was a four-sided election, i.e., four persons were contesting for the post of ‘Pradhan’. Three of the four persons submitted by way of affidavit that they had doubts regarding the propriety of the election, and they would support a recount of votes.”
Senior Advocate S.R. Singh appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Sweta Rani represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The election for the position of Gram Pradhan was held pursuant to a notification issued by the Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Appellant contested the election but lost to the Respondent. However, Appellant challenged the election result on the grounds of inconsistencies in vote counting at certain polling booths under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The Presiding Officer initially informed him that 1,194 votes were cast at these booths, but the official tally later reflected a total of 1,213 votes—creating a discrepancy of 19 votes.
Court’s Reasoning
The bench noted that deliberate attempts were made to benefit the ultimate victor such as the use of police force to remove the Appellant from the vicinity of the polling area. The diary of the Presiding Officer of the polling booths, an essential document recording the casting of votes, was also not found despite a concerted effort.
“The candidates in the election wanting to keep an eye on voting during the day and inspect records of the same is something which cannot be denied to them. If the Presiding Officers’ records are missing and cannot be verified, it can be found that the final conclusion is within the realm of questionability. Each and every document pertaining to an election is important and all efforts should be made to preserve the same,” the Bench held.
“The election in question took place in the year 2021 and the process of law has culminated by way of this judgment, four years later. For the reasons aforesaid, that three of the four candidates question the veracity of the election and the manner in which it was conducted, and that important documents pertaining to the election are missing and such absence is unexplained, we are of the view in the present facts that a recount would be justified,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “The judgment of the High Court…is, therefore, set aside and order dated 31st October 2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate…is restored. The appeal is allowed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 332)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate S.R. Singh; Advocates Sushant Kumar Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Mangal Prasad, Prithvi Yadav, Gaurav Lomes, Anurag Singh and Radha Rajput; AOR Ankur Yadav
Respondent: AOR Sweta Rani and Shaurya Sahay; Advocates Aditya Kumar and Ruchil Raj
