When Election Fairness Is in Doubt, Recount Becomes Necessary: Supreme Court Orders Recount in UP Panchayat Election

Missing Election Records and Unexplained Vote Discrepancies Justify Judicial Intervention: In a crucial ruling Supreme Court of India ordered a recount of votes in the 2021 Uttar Pradesh Panchayat elections, emphasizing that elections must not only be free and fair but must also appear to be so. The Court held that when official records are missing, vote count discrepancies remain unexplained, and multiple candidates question the fairness of the process, courts must intervene to uphold the integrity of democracy.

Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, delivering the judgment in Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar & Ors., made it clear that "when serious doubts persist about the fairness of an election, the secrecy of the ballot cannot be used as a shield to prevent scrutiny. Every vote carries sanctity, and the democratic process must stand the test of transparency."

The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision, which had quashed an order for a recount in the 2021 Gram Pradhan election for the village of Chaka @ Chak, Saidabad, Prayagraj, and restored the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s directive to conduct a recount. The Court observed that missing election records, coupled with irregularities in vote counting, raised serious concerns that could not be ignored.

The dispute arose from the 2021 Uttar Pradesh Panchayat elections for the post of Gram Pradhan in Chaka @ Chak, Saidabad, Prayagraj. The appellant, Vijay Bahadur, contested the election but lost to Sunil Kumar by a margin of 37 votes.

During the vote counting, Bahadur noticed a discrepancy between the Presiding Officer’s oral announcement of the number of votes cast and the final tally recorded in Form 46. He alleged that: "At polling booths 43, 44, and 45, the Presiding Officer initially declared that 1194 votes had been cast, but the final Form 46 recorded 1213 votes—a difference of 19 votes. Additionally, votes in my favor were deliberately canceled at the counting tables to benefit Sunil Kumar."

Bahadur’s concerns deepened when he discovered that the Presiding Officer’s diary—an essential election record that logs the number of votes cast—was missing, making it impossible to verify whether the vote count was accurate.

Bahadur filed an election petition under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, seeking a recount of votes from booths 43, 44, and 45. He produced oral testimonies and sought documents under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, but the Election Office responded that the relevant records were missing.

On October 31, 2022, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) ruled in Bahadur’s favor, ordering a recount, stating: "When election records are missing and multiple candidates express doubts about the accuracy of the vote count, a recount is the only way to ensure public faith in the electoral process."
Sunil Kumar challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court, arguing that:
•    The election was conducted fairly, and no irregularities had been proven.
•    Votes were canceled only after proper scrutiny.
•    Recounting would violate the secrecy of the ballot.
On January 27, 2023, the Allahabad High Court set aside the SDM’s order, ruling that "a recount cannot be ordered solely based on oral allegations unless supported by strong documentary evidence." The Court concluded that Bahadur’s claims were unsubstantiated and did not meet the legal standard for ordering a recount.

Bahadur then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the missing election records and unexplained vote discrepancies warranted judicial intervention.

Supreme Court: "Election Integrity Demands Transparency, Recount Is Justified"
Reversing the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled that discrepancies in vote counts and missing records were sufficient grounds for ordering a recount. The Bench observed: "Democracy thrives on trust. If official election documents disappear without explanation, and the final vote count does not match initial declarations, the fairness of the election is cast into doubt. A recount is not just justified but necessary."

The Court emphasized that "secrecy of the ballot must be upheld, but it cannot be used as a tool to prevent scrutiny when doubts over fairness persist."

"Missing Election Records and the Candidate’s Removal from the Counting Hall Raise Red Flags"
The Supreme Court found multiple factors that justified a recount:

•    Three out of four candidates in the election supported the demand for a recount, indicating a broader concern about fairness.
•    The official election diary, which records the number of votes cast, was mysteriously missing, and the Election Office could not provide an explanation.
•    There were allegations that Bahadur was forcibly removed from the counting hall by the police, preventing him from verifying the tally.
The Court ruled that these circumstances raised serious doubts about the integrity of the election, stating: "If crucial records have vanished and cannot be verified, then the entire electoral process is called into question. In such a scenario, the only way to ensure fairness is to conduct a recount."

"Judicial Precedents on Recounting: When Should Courts Intervene?"
The Supreme Court relied on established legal principles to determine when a recount is justified. Citing Hussain Kamil Kidwai v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai (1964), the Court reiterated: "A recount cannot be ordered merely because a losing candidate demands it. However, when material facts raise doubts about the accuracy of the vote count, courts must intervene to uphold electoral integrity."

The Court also referred to Vadivelu v. Sundaram (2000), emphasizing that: "Secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct, but this principle cannot override the need for transparency when an election’s integrity is seriously questioned."

The Bench concluded that Bahadur’s case met the legal threshold for a recount, as there were genuine doubts about the correctness of the vote count, and crucial election records had gone missing.

Supreme Court Orders Recount, High Court Judgment Set Aside
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vijay Bahadur, restoring the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order for a recount. It directed: "The Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Writ-C No. 35734 of 2022 is set aside. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order dated October 31, 2022, is restored. The recount shall be conducted under strict judicial supervision."

The Court ordered the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to ensure that the recount is conducted fairly and transparently.

"Each Vote Matters, and Election Integrity Must Be Protected"
This judgment reinforces that:
•    Election results must be based on an accurate and verifiable vote count.
•    Missing election records raise serious concerns that cannot be ignored.
•    Judicial intervention is necessary when multiple candidates allege electoral irregularities.
By ensuring a recount where doubts persist, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its commitment to protecting the integrity of democratic processes and upholding the fundamental principle that every vote must count fairly and accurately.

Date of Decision: March 6, 2025