The Supreme Court restores a recount in a UP Gram Pradhan election, highlighting that every single vote holds great importance. Major discrepancies and missing election records raised doubts about fairness, leading to the court’s crucial intervention.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court said that every vote is valuable, no matter whether it changes the final election result or not. Therefore, the vote’s importance must always be protected.
The court cancelled an earlier decision made by the Allahabad High Court, which had stopped a recount of votes in a Gram Pradhan election, saying there was no proper evidence to justify the recount.
However, the Supreme Court restored the recount order, stating clearly that there were genuine doubts about the fairness of the election process.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | VVPAT Cross-Verification of Votes Plea to Be Heard by Supreme Court Next Week
The court noted serious issues, such as differences in the number of votes counted, missing records from the election, and the fact that three out of the four candidates had officially questioned the election results through affidavits.
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh said,
“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.”
The Gram Pradhan election took place after the Uttar Pradesh government issued an official notice. The appellant (the person who challenged the result) lost this election to the respondent (the person who won).
But later, the appellant raised concerns about vote counting issues at certain polling stations under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
Initially, the election officer had informed the appellant that 1,194 votes were cast at these polling booths, but later, the official count showed 1,213 votes—a difference of 19 votes.
The Supreme Court also pointed out attempts that seemed to unfairly favour the winning candidate. For instance, police force was used to remove the appellant from the polling station area. Additionally, the Presiding Officer’s diary, a crucial document showing the voting details, went missing and could not be found despite efforts.
The court further added,
“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.”
Highlighting the delay and concerns involved, the Supreme Court also stated,
“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.”
Finally, the Supreme Court clearly said,
“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.”
As a result, the appeal was accepted by the Supreme Court.
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
Case Title:
Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar & Ors.
(Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 332)
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
