Supreme Court flags discrepancies in UP Panchayat Elections, orders vote recount

The Supreme Court recently emphasised that each vote in an election has its own value which must be protected regardless of the election's final outcome, while expressing concerns about discrepancies in the 2021 Uttar Pradesh Gram Pradhan elections [Vijay Bahadur vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors.]..A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh found that there were critical documents that went missing and an unexplained gap in the votes announced, which cast doubt on the 2021 election’s integrity.The Court proceeded to restore a sub-divisional magistrate's order to have a recount of the votes cast in the 2021 village-level elections. It held that the absence of the Presiding Officer’s diary - a key record of polling - and a 19 vote mismatch between oral and official tallies of votes warranted judicial intervention."Each vote has its own value irrespective of its effect in the final outcome of the election. Its sanctity has to be protected ... 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," the Court said..Court’s concern lies away from who is in power and instead is in how one got to power.Supreme Court.The dispute arose in Chak village of Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, where one Vijay Bahadur (appellant) lost the Gram Pradhan election to one, Sunil Kumar (respondent) by 37 votes.Bahadur alleged that while the Presiding Officer orally stated 1,194 votes were cast across three booths, an election form (Form 46) later reflected 1,213 votes having been cast. In other words, there was a gap of 19 votes between the Presiding Officer's oral account of how many votes were cast and the total number of cast said to have been cast in the election form.To resolve this controversy, the sub-divisional magistrate ordered a recount of votes in October 2022. However, after this was challenged, the Allahabad High Court quashed the magistrate's decision in January 2023, citing insufficient documentary evidence to warrant a recount.The High Court's verdict was questioned before the Supreme Court, which on March 6 opined that there were sufficient grounds to hold a vote recount. Among other factors, the Supreme Court also noted that three of the four election candidates supported the recount. The Presiding Officer’s diary also remained untraceable, rendering the election process within the realm of questionability, the top court added. "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? ... 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," the Bench said. The top court, therefore, overturned the High Court's decision and issued directions to fix a date for the vote recount..The Court added that vote recounts are permissible when prima facie, evidence reveals material irregularities in the elections, even if the margin of victory remains unaffected after the recount. “This Court’s concern lies away from who is in power and instead is in how one got to power. This (election) process has to be in accordance with constitutional principles and established norms - if not, then such a person has to be deprived of the power, and the decision-making by the people must begin once more," it explained. .The Bench further underscored that the universal adult franchise has been a fundamental aspect of democratic governance since its inception, ensuring that every citizen, regardless of societal inequalities such as caste, class, gender, or disability, exercises equal power in choosing their representatives.The Court observed that this momentary equality in the electoral process highlights the broader aspiration of achieving substantive equality through constitutional mechanisms..The appellant, Vijay Bahadur was represented by Senior Advocate SR Singh along with Advocates Sushant Kumar Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Mangal Prasad, Prithvi Yadav, Gaurav Lomes, Anurag Singh, and Radha Rajput and Ankur Yadav.The respondent, Sunil Kumar was represented by Advocate Sweta Rani. Advocate Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar, and Ruchil Raj represented the Uttar Pradesh government and other respondents. .[Read Judgement]