Bihar Panchayat Election Dispute: Supreme Court Orders Retotaling and Declares New Winner

The case of Usha Devi vs. Bibha Devi & Ors. revolved around a highly contested election for the post of Mukhiya (village head) in Gram Panchayat Kansi, District Darbhanga, Bihar. The dispute arose due to errors in vote counting, leading to wrongful declaration of the election result. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the results should be altered based on the actual vote count, ensuring fairness in the democratic process.

The litigation lasted for more than two and a half years, with multiple appeals and petitions being filed before various courts. After reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court found that a serious counting error had resulted in the wrongful declaration of Bibha Devi as the winner, even though Usha Devi had secured more votes. The Court ordered the immediate correction of the election result and directed the administration to declare Usha Devi as the rightful Mukhiya.

Background of the Case

The election for the post of Mukhiya in Gram Panchayat Kansi was held in accordance with the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act. During the counting of votes, a discrepancy occurred when the votes from Booth No. 8, though counted, were not included in the final result sheet. Due to this mistake, the first respondent, Bibha Devi, was erroneously declared the winner, and she assumed office as Mukhiya.

The appellant, Usha Devi, challenged the election result before the Election Tribunal, arguing that the actual count, including the missing votes from Booth No. 8, showed that she had received more votes than Bibha Devi. The Election Tribunal ruled in her favor and ordered re-totaling, confirming that Usha Devi had actually won the election.

Legal Battle and Appeals

Despite the Tribunal’s order, Bibha Devi challenged the decision before the High Court, leading to multiple rounds of litigation. The matter was escalated through the following legal steps:

Initially, Usha Devi filed a petition before the Election Tribunal, which ruled in her favor and ordered re-totaling.
Bibha Devi appealed against this ruling before a Single Judge of the Patna High Court, which issued an interim stay.
Subsequently, a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court.
Meanwhile, additional amendments were sought in the writ petition, further delaying the resolution.

After prolonged litigation, the case reached the Supreme Court, which took cognizance of the facts and determined that the integrity of the electoral process must be upheld.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Usha Devi)

The actual vote count, including votes from Booth No. 8, showed that Usha Devi received 1565 votes, whereas Bibha Devi received only 1557 votes.
The incorrect declaration of results was due to negligence on the part of the Returning Officer, who failed to include all counted votes in the final tally.
Democratic principles demand that the true winner, as reflected by the voters’ choice, should be declared the Mukhiya.
The delay in rectifying the results had already led to an unjust situation where the respondent continued to hold office despite losing the election.

Arguments by the Respondent (Bibha Devi)

The declaration of results by the Election Commission should be considered final and should not be altered after so much time.
Re-totaling orders by the Tribunal were procedurally incorrect and should not have been accepted.
Since she had been serving as Mukhiya for more than two years, removing her from office would create administrative instability.
The petitions filed by Usha Devi were an attempt to undermine the authority of the Returning Officer.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a firm verdict in favor of Usha Devi, emphasizing that fairness and integrity in elections cannot be compromised. The key rulings of the Court were as follows:

The Election Tribunal had rightly ordered re-totaling, which confirmed that Usha Devi had secured more votes than Bibha Devi.
The error in excluding votes from Booth No. 8 was a serious lapse on the part of the Returning Officer, and no technicality should override the will of the voters.
“No technicality shall stand against the will of the people expressed through their votes. Only on account of laches on the part of the Returning Officer, it is unfortunate that the first respondent has been continuing as Mukhiya despite not being the successful candidate.”
The delay in rectifying the results should not prevent the rightful winner from assuming office.
All pending cases related to the matter were dismissed, and the Returning Officer was directed to immediately issue a formal notification declaring Usha Devi as the elected Mukhiya.
The oath-taking process for Usha Devi was to be completed within one week.

The Court observed:

“For the sake of purity of the democratic process of election, we are of the view that the litigation should be given a quietus.”

Implementation of the Judgment

The Supreme Court issued clear directives to ensure swift implementation of its judgment:

The Returning Officer was ordered to formally notify the revised election results.
Usha Devi was to be administered the oath of office within one week.
All pending cases before the High Court were dismissed.
The Election Commission was instructed to ensure compliance with the Court’s orders without any further delay.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the importance of accuracy and integrity in electoral processes. By correcting an error in vote counting, the Supreme Court upheld the fundamental democratic principle that the will of the people must prevail.

The ruling also establishes an important precedent for future election disputes, affirming that courts have the authority to intervene when electoral irregularities are proven. It highlights the responsibility of election officials to ensure transparency and accuracy in counting votes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s verdict in this case serves as a landmark ruling in electoral jurisprudence. By ensuring that the rightful candidate assumes office, the Court has demonstrated its commitment to upholding democratic values and preventing wrongful occupation of public positions.

The case also underscores the importance of diligent election administration and the necessity for swift judicial intervention in cases of electoral disputes. Through its ruling, the Supreme Court has reinforced that errors and negligence by election officials cannot be allowed to alter the true mandate of the people.

Petitioner Name: Usha Devi.
Respondent Name: Bibha Devi & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Darbhanga, Bihar.
Judgment Date: 15-11-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Usha Devi vs Bibha Devi & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-11-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Deepak Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Election and Political Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category