Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a Gram Pradhan election dispute in village Chaka @ Chak, Uttar Pradesh. The appellant, Vijay Bahadur, was the vanquished candidate, and the respondent, Sunil Kumar, was the victor. The appellant alleged that the Presiding Officer informed him that 1194 votes were cast in polling booths 43, 44, and 45, but Form 46 showed 1213 votes, indicating 19 illegal votes. He also claimed that votes in his favor were cancelled in connivance with the respondent. The appellant filed an election petition under Section 12-C(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, seeking a recount. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after considering evidence including testimonies and documents, found sufficient grounds and ordered a recount. The respondent challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court under Article 226, which set aside the recount order. The Supreme Court, in appeal, examined the High Court's decision. The Court noted that the High Court had not properly appreciated the prima facie evidence of irregularity, including the discrepancy in vote count and the failure to provide documents under RTI. The Supreme Court held that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order was justified to maintain the appellant's faith in the judicial system and the counting process. The Court emphasized that free and fair elections are the bedrock of democracy and that recount orders should not be lightly interfered with. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's recount order.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Gram Pradhan Election - Recount of Votes - Section 12-C(1) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Discrepancy between oral statement of Presiding Officer (1194 votes) and Form 46 (1213 votes) in three polling booths, along with allegations of cancellation of votes in favor of appellant, constituted sufficient grounds for recount - Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order directing recount was justified to maintain faith in judicial system and counting process - High Court erred in setting aside the recount order without considering the prima facie evidence of irregularity (Paras 4-5, 5.4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the order of recount of votes passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 12-C(1) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, based on allegations of discrepancy in vote count and irregularities in the electoral process.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The order of the High Court dated 27th January 2023 is set aside. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 31st October 2022 directing recount is restored.
Law Points
- Free and fair elections are basic feature of democracy
- Recount can be ordered if prima facie evidence of irregularity exists
- Section 12-C(1) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act
- 1947 provides remedy for election disputes
- Discrepancy in vote count is sufficient ground for recount
