A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This judgment examines whether a Sub-Divisional Magistrate was justified in ordering a recount of votes in a Gram Pradhan election under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, where an apparent discrepancy existed between the oral count communicated at the polling booths (total 1194 votes across booths 43–45) and the figure recorded in Form 46 (1213 votes) a difference of 19 votes.

The High Court set aside the recount order for want of documentary support and for alleged vagueness in pleadings. The Supreme Court, after surveying precedent on the sanctity of the ballot and the narrow circumstances permitting inspection/recount (notably Hussain Kamil Kidwai, Vadivelu, Suresh Prasad Yadav), emphasized that secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct but not absolute.

Where material facts are pleaded and prima facie satisfaction exists that recount is necessary to do complete justice particularly when Presiding Officer’s diary and other contemporaneous records are missing, and multiple candidates (three of four) suspect impropriety the Court held that recount was justified. The High Court’s quashing of the recount order was set aside; the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order restored and directions issued to fix date for recount.

The judgment balances ballot secrecy with the constitutional imperative of free and fair elections and underscores preservation of election documents and the value of procedural integrity.

Keywords: Recount of votes; Secrecy of ballot; U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947; Form 46; Free and fair elections.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arises from a Gram Pradhan election in Chaka @ Chak, Saidabad, Prayagraj (elections notified 17 March 2021; polling 2–3 May 2021). The appellant alleged that the Presiding Officer orally informed him of 1,194 votes recorded across booths 43–45 immediately after counting, while the official Form 46 recorded 1,213 votes — a gap of 19 votes. The appellant alleged insertion of ballot papers from outside and contended wrongful cancellation/acceptance of votes at certain tables, asserting that such discrepancies materially affected the result (final margin 37 votes). He sought recount under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after hearing and recording evidence (including oral testimony and affidavits) and noting missing contemporaneous election records (notably the Presiding Officer’s diary and Matpatra Lekha which could not be located despite RTI application and directions), ordered a recount. The respondent challenged that interlocutory order; the High Court quashed it, holding that pleadings lacked documentary support and that recount could not be ordered on vague oral assertions, citing secrecy-of-ballot concerns.

The Supreme Court was called upon to reconcile strict protection of ballot secrecy with the need to preserve electoral integrity where prima facie material facts and unexplained disappearance of essential records render the official outcome questionable. The Court surveyed binding precedents on when recount/inspection may be permitted, applied those principles to the factual matrix including affidavits of multiple candidates, police action removing the appellant from polling locality, and missing records, and addressed separation of remedies under Section 12-C and Article 243-O concerns about judicial interference in local elections.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE 

The State held Gram Panchayat elections in 2021; four candidates contested for Pradhan. After counting, appellant claims the Presiding Officer orally informed agents that polling booths 43, 44, 45 recorded 1,194 votes collectively. Official Form 46 issued later showed 1,213 votes a variance of 19 votes. Appellant alleged deliberate insertion of ballot papers and cancellation of votes in his favour at tables 13–15 at Nyay Panchayat Utarav.

During counting, specific booth-wise tallies were narrated in the petition (e.g., booth 43: appellant 233, respondent 231, invalid 20; booth 44: appellant 148, respondent 184, invalid 20; booth 45: appellant 133, respondent 136, invalid 10) and discrepancies were highlighted with Form 46 figures.

Appellant applied to the Election Officer for recount; application ignored. Election Petition No. 0210/2021 filed under Section 12-C(1) pressed for recount. Evidence included oral testimony of appellant and others and RTI request for Matpatra Lekha and Presiding Officer’s diary; the Assistant Election Officer reported inability to trace these documents. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after hearing and noting affidavits from three of four candidates expressing doubts about propriety, and other indicators (alleged police removal of appellant from vicinity), directed recount (31 Oct 2022). Revision petition dismissed; High Court later quashed recount order on grounds of lack of documentary support and that secrecy of ballot should not be breached on flimsy or vague pleadings. The Supreme Court was called on to review whether there was prima facie case commanding recount despite the general rule against disturbing ballot secrecy.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

1. Whether a recount of ballot papers may be ordered under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act where oral counts differ from Form 46 by 19 votes?

2. Whether absence/misplacement of contemporaneous election records (Presiding Officer’s diary, Matpatra Lekha) can justify ordering a recount despite the secrecy of the ballot?

3. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s recount order for want of documentary corroboration?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the election petition pleaded material facts (paras 7–10) with specificity showing disparity between contemporaneous oral count and Form 46 and alleged improper cancellation/acceptance of votes. Reliance placed on precedents permitting recount when pleadings and prima facie evidence justify it (Hussain Kamil Kidwai, Ram Sewak Yadav). The secrecy principle does not bar recount where integrity of election is prima facie tainted. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 12-C and the remedy by revision (Section 12-C(6)) does not preclude scrutiny; the High Court erred in substituting its view for the Tribunal’s preliminary satisfaction.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the respondent submitted that appellant produced no contemporaneous documents supporting oral assertions; affidavits filed on respondent’s behalf negated irregularity; recount would breach secrecy of ballot on flimsy grounds. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order was non-speaking and based on vague allegations; the High Court correctly set aside the order. Further, remedies under the Act (revision) and bar under Article 243-O restrict judicial interference in electoral decisions.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court undertook a principled analysis of settled law: recount/inspection is exceptional and permissible only where:

(a) pleadings contain adequate statement of material facts;

(b) on evidence, allegations are prima facie established giving good ground to believe counting mistake; and

(c) recount is imperatively necessary to do complete justice (drawing on Hussain Kamil Kidwai, Vadivelu, Suresh Prasad Yadav, Beli Ram Bhalaik, Udey Chand).

The Court emphasized the sacrosanct nature of ballot secrecy but recognized it yields when the purity of election is materially in doubt.

Applying law to facts, the Court accepted that the discrepancy of 19 votes and missing Presiding Officer’s diary / Matpatra Lekha created a situation where the final conclusion is open to question. The presence of affidavits by three out of four candidates endorsing doubts, allegations of police action to remove the appellant from polling vicinity, and failure to preserve essential records shifted the balance in favour of recount.

The Court rejected the High Court’s strict dismissal for lack of documentary proof, noting that absence of documents (when unexplained) is itself a material circumstance undermining confidence in the process. Given the time elapsed (election in 2021; litigation culminating 2025) and the combined factual matrix, the Court found the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order to be justified: secrecy here is not a blanket bar. The High Court’s judgment was set aside; the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order (31 Oct 2022) restored and directions given for recount scheduling after hearing parties.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The controlling ratio is that a recount may be ordered despite the principle of ballot secrecy when:

(i) election petition pleads adequate, material facts;

(ii) prima facie evidence suggests improper acceptance/rejection or other irregularity affecting result; and

(iii) the tribunal is convinced recount is necessary to do complete justice.

Crucially, unexplained loss or non-availability of contemporaneous electoral records (e.g., Presiding Officer’s diary, Matpatra Lekha) is a decisive factor that can justify breaching secrecy for the purpose of restoring electoral integrity. The value of each vote and the need for procedural sanctity outweigh formal strictures where a fair process is suspect.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed more broadly that how power is acquired is as important as who acquires it; democratic legitimacy requires adherence to established norms. The opinion underlined the duty to preserve election records and the illegitimacy of using state machinery (police) to influence electoral surroundings. It also remarked that Article 243-O and statutory revision remedies do not immunize flawed processes from scrutiny where prima facie injustice appears. These comments, while persuasive, are ancillary to the holding.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Recount orders must be exceptional, grounded on pleaded material facts and prima facie evidence.

2. Preservation of contemporaneous election documents (diaries, Matpatra Lekha, Form 46) is imperative; unexplained absence weighs in favour of recount.

3. Multiple independent affidavits expressing doubts strengthen the case for recount where documentary proof is lacking.

4. Secrecy of ballot remains paramount but is not absolute; breach permitted to uphold overall electoral integrity when necessary to do complete justice.

5. Courts must balance non-interference principles with constitutional mandate for free and fair elections; interlocutory orders under State Panchayat statutes are amenable to judicial review where jurisdictional or procedural fairness issues arise.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court restored the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s recount order. The decision reaffirms established criteria for ordering recount/inspection yet clarifies that unexplained disappearance of essential electoral records and corroborative affidavits of candidates may justify recount despite strictures protecting ballot secrecy.

Practically, the judgment sends a strong procedural message: electoral functionaries must diligently preserve and produce contemporaneous records; parties aggrieved must plead material facts with precision; and tribunals should not reflexively refuse recounts where prima facie irregularity and documentary lacunae exist. The ruling strikes a jurisprudential balance safeguarding secrecy of the ballot while ensuring that procedural defects do not ossify an outcome arrived at by doubtful means.

By restoring the recount, the Court prioritized substantive justice and electoral purity over formality, consistent with constitutional values of free and fair elections and the basic structure imperative that the electorate’s chosen process be unimpeachable.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar & Ors., [2025] 4 S.C.R. 11; 2025 INSC 332 (Supreme Court).

2. Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1249.

3. Vadivelu v. Sundaram, (2000) 8 SCC 355.

4. Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra, (1975) 4 SCC 822.

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.

8. T.N. Seshan v. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 611.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, §12-C.

2. Representation of the People Act, 1951 (principles on recount/inspection referenced).

3. Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI request for election records noted).