A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 14311 of 2024 ([2025] 4 S.C.R. 11 : 2025 INSC 332) addresses whether a subordinate authority was justified in ordering a recount of ballot papers in a Gram Pradhan election where an unexplained numerical disparity of 19 votes existed between (a) the number orally communicated at the close of counting by the Presiding Officer and (b) the consolidated total shown in Form 46.

The contest was closely fought (margin 37 votes) and the petitioning candidate alleged tampering, cancellation of votes in his favour, disappearance of the Presiding Officer’s diary and use of police to remove agents facts accepted as raising prima facie suspicion by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who ordered recounting under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The Allahabad High Court quashed the recount order on the ground that the petition lacked documentary support and that secrecy of the ballot could not be lightly disturbed.

The Supreme Court, after surveying established authorities on inspection/recount (notably Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai, Vadivelu v. Sundaram, Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra and related precedents), held that where material facts are pleaded and contemporaneous records are missing or unexplained, and where multiple contestants support scrutiny, an order for recount is justified to protect the integrity of the electoral process. The High Court’s order was set aside and the Magistrate’s interlocutory order restored, directing recount after hearing parties.

Keywords: recount, Form 46, secrecy of ballot, Section 12-C, electoral integrity.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar & Ors..
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 14311 of 2024.
iii) Judgment Date: 06 March 2025.
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India (Bench: Sanjay Karol and N.K. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.).
v) Quorum: Two-Judge Bench.
vi) Author: Sanjay Karol, J..
vii) Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 11 : 2025 INSC 332.
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Section 12-C, U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947; Article 136 & Article 226, Constitution of India; principles developed under Representation of the People Act, 1951 jurisprudence.
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None.
x) Related Law Subjects: Electoral Law; Constitutional Law; Administrative Law; Local Government Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal arises from a Panchayat election (Gram Pradhan) in Chaka @ Chak, Saidabad (Prayagraj) where voting occurred on 2–3 May 2021. The appellant claimed that at the close of counting the Presiding Officer orally informed him that Booths 43 – 45 had 1,194 votes, while the consolidated Form 46 recorded 1,213 votes a difference of 19 votes. That numerical inconsistency, plaintiff’s contention of cancelled votes in his favour, the alleged removal of his agents by police and the subsequent unavailability of the Presiding Officer’s diary and Matpatra Lekha on RTI, generated an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 seeking recount.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on hearing the parties and considering affidavits of multiple contestants expressing doubt about the count, ordered recounting. The respondent challenged that interlocutory order in revision and before the High Court which set aside the recount on the basis that the petition lacked documentary proof and the order was non-speaking; the High Court emphasized the sacrosanct nature of ballot secrecy and refused to disturb it on vague allegations. The Supreme Court was called upon to examine whether, given the pleaded material facts and the unexplained loss of electoral records, the Magistrate’s order met the tests laid down in the Court’s precedents for permitting inspection/recount.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The State notified Gram Pradhan elections and polling took place in early May 2021. The appellant contested and, immediately post counting, alleged that the Presiding Officer orally informed him that Booths 43–45 recorded 1,194 votes, while Form 46 recorded 1,213 votes. The appellant alleged that 19 extra ballot papers had been introduced and that votes in his favour were cancelled by persons at table Nos.13–15 at Nyay Panchayat Utarav in connivance with respondent. During counting he recorded specific per-booth counts and invalidated ballot numbers in his petition. He submitted an RTI application seeking the Presiding Officer’s diary and Matpatra Lekha; the Assistant Election Officer reported inability to locate those documents.

Three of the four contestants provided affidavits expressing doubts about the conduct of the election and supported recount. Evidence on record included oral testimonies of the appellant and some witnesses plus respondent’s statement. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on evaluating the pleadings, oral evidence and supporting affidavits, found sufficient grounds and ordered recount of Booths 43–45. The respondent filed revision and succeeded in getting the order stayed and later filed a writ petition in High Court which quashed the Magistrate’s order; the petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a recount/inspection of ballot papers can be ordered where there is an asserted disparity between the oral count and Form 46 absent contemporaneous documentary proof?
ii. Whether Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 empowers the prescribed authority to order recount and whether such order is amenable to writ under Article 226?
iii. Whether the secrecy of ballot is an absolute bar against recount when pleaded facts indicate possible tampering or disappearance of election records?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellant contended that the election petition pleaded material facts (paras 7–10) with precision, showing prima facie irregularity warranting recount; reliance was placed on Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and subsequent decisions permitting inspection where adequate facts are pleaded. It was urged that the secrecy doctrine cannot be used to shield irregularities and that the inability to produce Presiding Officer’s diary and Matpatra Lekha on RTI fortified the need for scrutiny. The appellant further submitted that orders under Section 12-C are final in their fact-finding domain and that the Magistrate rightly exercised implicit powers to order recount to do complete justice between parties.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

Respondent argued that the petition lacked documentary support and rested on vague oral assertions; several affidavits produced on his behalf affirmed regularity of the process. He contended recount would breach ballot secrecy and cannot be ordered on flimsy grounds. Reliance was placed on the High Court’s view that the Magistrate’s order was non-speaking and unsupported. Further, respondent asserted remedies under the Act (revision to District Judge) and urged that interference by writ be inappropriate.

H) JUDGMENT 

The Court analyzed the statutory mandate of Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and surveyed a line of Supreme Court precedents governing recount/inspection in electoral disputes: Hussain Kamil Kidwai v. Ram Sewak Yadav (Constitution Bench), Vadivelu v. Sundaram, Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra, Beli Ram Bhalaik v. Behari Lal Khachi, Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh and Udey Chand v. Surat Singh.

From those authorities the Court extracted the consistent tripartite test:

(1) adequate pleading of material facts;

(2) prima facie establishment by evidence of a probable mistake or illegality in counting;

(3) satisfaction that inspection/recount is imperatively necessary to do complete and effectual justice.

Applying these principles, the Court observed that while the numerical difference was 19 votes (out of a tight contest with margin 37), the question was not mere arithmetic but integrity of process.

The Court gave weight to contextual facts: three of four contestants supported recount, allegations of police being used to remove the appellant’s agent, and most significantly the non-availability of the Presiding Officer’s diary and Matpatra Lekha despite RTI requisition and official efforts an unexplained loss of contemporaneous records that are central to verifying counts. The Court held that where essential records are missing and the election process is shadowed by credible factual allegations, the balance tilts in favour of recount to secure public confidence in elections.

The High Court’s emphasis on ballot secrecy was acknowledged but the Court reiterated that secrecy is not absolute; it must yield where material facts justify limited breach for achieving substantive justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, restored the Magistrate’s interlocutory order directing recount, and remitted for fixed date after hearing parties. Registry was directed to communicate the judgment to ensure prompt action.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive ratio is that an order for recount may be justified notwithstanding concerns of ballot secrecy where the election petition pleads adequate material facts and there exists prima facie evidence suggesting irregularity or loss/unavailability of essential electoral records such that recounting is imperatively necessary to do complete justice between parties. Missing contemporaneous documents and multiple contestants’ apprehensions amount to sufficient grounds. The Court applied established tripartite tests from earlier precedents and concluded they were satisfied on present facts.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court underscored democratic values: every vote has intrinsic value and the manner of acquisition of power must conform to constitutional norms; procedural defects that cast doubt on legitimacy warrant remedial measures. It reiterated that secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct but not inviolable where justice demands scrutiny. Reference to broader constitutional principles from T.N. Seshan v. Union of India and Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India reflects an obiter concern for substantive democracy and integrity of electoral processes.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Adequate pleading of material facts in election petitions remains a threshold requirement; vague or cryptic allegations will not suffice.
ii. Prima facie evidence must be adduced to show reasonable ground for believing a mistake or illegality in counting; oral testimony supported by circumstances (e.g., missing records) can meet this standard.
iii. Secrecy of the ballot must be preserved as a rule but may be limited in scope where missing contemporaneous documents or use of force and corroborative affidavits create substantial doubt about integrity.
iv. Multiple contestants’ affidavits raising similar concerns increase cogency of the petition and strengthen the case for recount.
v. Preservation of electoral records is critical; Election machinery must ensure safekeeping of diaries and matpatra as any unexplained lapse may justify judicial remedial action.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision reaffirms judicial sensitivity to both the sanctity of the ballot and the imperative of substantive justice. It clarifies that recounts are exceptional but permissible where the pleaded material facts and surrounding circumstances notably disappearance of key contemporaneous records and corroborative affidavits render the final result suspect.

Practically, the judgment places a duty on electoral functionaries to preserve records and on courts/tribunals to balance secrecy against the need to protect electoral integrity. For litigators, the case highlights the importance of precise pleading, contemporaneous evidence (RTI responses, agent diaries, agent statements) and strategic use of affidavits by fellow contestants. For election administrators it is a caution about record management and transparency. The ruling sustains democratic trust by prioritizing process legitimacy even when the numerical change may not alter the result, thereby reinforcing that how power is obtained matters as much as who obtains it.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 14311 of 2024, [2025] 4 S.C.R. 11 : 2025 INSC 332.

2. Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1249 (reported at [1964] 6 SCR 238).

3. Vadivelu v. Sundaram, (2000) 8 SCC 355 : 2000 Supp. 3 SCR 642.

4. Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra, (1975) 4 SCC 822 : [1975] 3 SCR 21.

5. Beli Ram Bhalaik v. Behari Lal Khachi, (1975) 4 SCC 417.

6. Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh, (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 82.

7. Udey Chand v. Surat Singh, (2009) 10 SCC 170 : [2009] 15 SCR 147.

8. T.N. Seshan v. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 611 : Supp. 2 SCR 106.

9. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, (2023) 6 SCC 161 : [2023] 9 SCR 1.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (particularly Section 12-C).

2. Representation of the People Act, 1951 (principles adopted via precedent).

3. Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI requisition relied upon in facts).