A 201-vote margin, a recount and a counting video the Election Commission says it cannot trace: Supreme Court Rejects ECI Claim Of Lost 2023 Sringeri Counting Video and warns that it will draw an adverse inference if the Commission does not produce its records.
New Delhi: Told by the Election Commission of India that it could not trace the video of the 2023 vote counting in the Sringeri Assembly constituency in Karnataka, the Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to accept that position. It directed the Commission to produce whatever records it holds by the next hearing, failing which an adverse inference may be drawn [TD Rajegowda v. DN Jeevaraj and Others].
The appeal, filed by Congress MLA TD Rajegowda against BJP candidate DN Jeevaraj and the ECI, was heard by a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva. Senior Advocate Seshadri Naidu appeared for the Commission. The matter will next be heard on February 15, 2027.
The missing video
Rajegowda’s side asked for the 2023 counting video, the observer’s report and the video recordings of both the original count and the recent recount. The ECI’s answer was that the 2023 video could not be traced. That did not satisfy the Bench.
How can the Election Commission of India (ECI) say that it has lost its record?
We will not accept these kinds of lame excuses.
Whatever records are available must be produced before the next date, the Court directed, and if they are not, an adverse inference would be drawn against the Commission.
From a narrow win to a revised result
Rajegowda had been declared the winner of the 2023 Sringeri election by 201 votes. In April 2026 the Karnataka High Court ordered a recount of postal ballots, including re-verification of 279 rejected postal ballots, and on May 3, 2026 the returning officer declared a revised result. It cut Rajegowda’s votes by 255 and named Jeevaraj the winner.
Before the Supreme Court, Rajegowda argues that the returning officer reconsidered 562 valid postal ballots in his favour, going beyond the 279 the High Court had directed to be re-verified. He also questions the need for a recount at all, given the High Court’s findings in his favour on the corruption allegations. In May 2026 the Supreme Court allowed him to continue as MLA while his plea is pending. Separately, the Karnataka High Court stayed, in May 2026, a criminal case against Jeevaraj over alleged tampering with postal ballot papers.
Why the order matters
Where the margin was 201 votes and the outcome turned on a recount, the counting video and the observer’s report are the primary evidence of how the ballots were handled. The Court’s warning signals that a statutory authority holding election records cannot answer a request for them by saying they are missing, and that non-production can invite an adverse inference.
The merits of the appeal have not been decided. The contentions of both candidates remain to be examined once the records are produced.
Case Title: TD Rajegowda v. DN Jeevaraj and Others (case number not available)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 14, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Seshadri Naidu for the Election Commission of India