Election Dispute Overturned: Supreme Court Declares Chandeshwar Saw as Mukhiya

The case of Chandeshwar Saw v. Brij Bhushan Prasad & Ors. revolves around an election dispute concerning the post of Mukhiya of Dariyapur Gram Panchayat, Bihar. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated January 28, 2020, set aside the election of the originally declared winner, Brij Bhushan Prasad, and reinstated the appellant, Chandeshwar Saw, as the duly elected Mukhiya.

The judgment provides clarity on election recount procedures, the role of the Election Tribunal, and the necessity of adhering to proper counting procedures. This case highlights crucial aspects of electoral law, particularly in ensuring that valid votes are accurately counted and results reflect the true will of the voters.

Background of the Case

The election for the post of Mukhiya in Dariyapur Gram Panchayat was held on May 6, 2016. Chandeshwar Saw, the appellant, contested against Brij Bhushan Prasad and 11 other candidates. After the counting of votes on June 4, 2016, Brij Bhushan Prasad was declared elected with a margin of 154 votes over Chandeshwar Saw.

However, Saw alleged that:

• Valid votes cast in his favor were improperly rejected.
• Invalid votes favoring Prasad were wrongly counted as valid.
• The counting officers disregarded objections raised during the process.

Based on these irregularities, Saw filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal, seeking a recount and challenging the election results.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Chandeshwar Saw)

• The counting officers failed to follow Rule 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, leading to improper counting.
• 216 valid votes cast for him were rejected due to light ink markings, while similar votes for Prasad were counted as valid.
• The returning officer ignored his written request for a recount.
• The result sheet prepared by the election officers was irregular and not in accordance with established rules.

Arguments by the Respondent (Brij Bhushan Prasad)

• The Election Tribunal had no authority to order a recount without a clear prima facie case.
• The petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence proving irregularities.
• No application for recount was submitted before the declaration of the election result.
• Recounting was ordered in haste and without following due process.

Election Tribunal’s Decision

The Election Tribunal, after evaluating oral and documentary evidence, found:

• The counting process was flawed, with rules not being followed.
• The result sheet was prepared improperly, and a recount was necessary.
• A recount should be conducted under the supervision of the District Magistrate.

Following the recount, the appellant, Chandeshwar Saw, secured 95 more valid votes than Prasad, reinforcing his claim that counting irregularities had affected the original outcome.

High Court’s Reversal

Prasad challenged the Tribunal’s order before the Patna High Court. A single judge upheld the Election Tribunal’s decision, affirming the need for a recount. However, the Division Bench later set aside this ruling, stating that:

• The Election Tribunal acted hastily and did not follow legal precedent before ordering a recount.
• The case lacked sufficient prima facie evidence to justify a recount.
• The Election Tribunal should have first examined the ballots before directing a recount.

The High Court’s decision effectively nullified the recount and reinstated Prasad as the elected Mukhiya.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and reinstated the findings of the Election Tribunal. The Court ruled:

• The Election Tribunal correctly found substantial irregularities in the counting process.
• The High Court erred in overturning the Tribunal’s order without examining the factual findings.
• The recount was justified, and the result of the recount proved that the originally declared result was incorrect.
• Chandeshwar Saw was the rightful winner of the election.

The Supreme Court, invoking Section 140 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, issued a declaration setting aside Prasad’s election and declaring Saw as the duly elected Mukhiya.

Legal Precedents Cited

• Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind (1976) – Established the conditions under which recounts may be ordered.
• Sohan Lal v. Babu Gandhi (2003) – Clarified that recount requests can be made in election petitions after results are declared.
• Mahender Pratap v. Krishan Pal (2003) – Emphasized that recounts should not be granted on vague or frivolous allegations.

Impact of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling has several implications:

• It reaffirms that election results must reflect the true will of the voters.
• It underscores the necessity of following proper counting procedures and addressing objections during the counting process.
• It clarifies that Election Tribunals have the authority to order recounts when substantial evidence of irregularities exists.
• It prevents appellate courts from interfering with well-founded factual findings made by Election Tribunals.

By reinstating the Election Tribunal’s findings and declaring the rightful winner, the Supreme Court ensured that electoral fairness was upheld.

Petitioner Name: Chandeshwar Saw.
Respondent Name: Brij Bhushan Prasad & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Dariyapur Gram Panchayat, Bihar.
Judgment Date: 28-01-2020.

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

Download Judgment: Chandeshwar Saw vs Brij Bhushan Prasad Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 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