(a) Electoral integrity and fairness are paramount to democratic principles (Para 14). (b) Discrepancy in vote count and missing election documents justified a recount (Para 18). (c) The sanctity of each vote and the confidence in the electoral process must be preserved (Para 15).

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s decision directing a recount of votes for the disputed polling booths.

The appeal was allowed, directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to set a date for the recount after hearing all parties (Para 19-20).

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India (COI) – Article 136, Article 226, Article 243-O

• Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 – Section 12-C(1), Section 12-C(6)

• Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA)

• Right to Information Act, 2005

Subjects:

Electoral Irregularity – Recount of Votes – Secrecy of Ballot – Judicial Review – Election Petition – Discrepancy in Vote Count – Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s Power – Free and Fair Elections – Upholding Democracy – Missing Election Documents

Nature of Litigation: Civil Appeal No. 14311 of 2024 arising from a writ petition challenging the recount order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in a Gram Pradhan election dispute.

Relief Sought: The appellant sought reinstatement of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order directing a recount of votes for polling booths 43, 44, and 45.

Reason for Filing the Case: Alleged discrepancy in the total votes cast and the official tally in Form 46 led the appellant to suspect electoral malpractice.

Prior Decisions:

• Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s Order (31st October, 2022) – Allowed recount of votes.

• High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (27th January, 2023) – Quashed the recount order.

Issues:

(a) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order for recount without proper verification of evidence. (b) Whether the discrepancy in the vote count warranted a recount to uphold the sanctity of the electoral process. (c) Whether the secrecy of the ballot would be compromised by the recount order.

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant’s Arguments:
  (a) The order for recount was based on substantial evidence and supported by legal precedent.
  (b) Three out of four candidates expressed doubts about the integrity of the vote count and supported the recount.
  (c) Key election documents, including the Presiding Officer’s diary, were missing, raising further suspicion.

• Respondent’s Arguments:
  (a) No documentary evidence supported the appellant’s claims of vote count discrepancy.
  (b) The secrecy of the ballot should not be breached without concrete evidence.
  (c) Affidavits submitted supported the fairness of the election process.