Election Recount Petition Dismissed: Supreme Court Rules on Chhattisgarh Panchayat Case

The Supreme Court of India recently adjudicated in Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu & Others, a case concerning the validity of an election recount petition in a Chhattisgarh Gram Panchayat election. The judgment, delivered on August 16, 2023, addressed whether an election petition seeking only a recount, without requesting a declaration of election invalidity or a new winner, was maintainable under election laws.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from the Gram Panchayat Semarkona elections in Mungeli district, Chhattisgarh, held on January 28, 2020. The election result was declared on January 30, 2020, and Babli Sahu (Respondent No. 1) was declared the elected Sarpanch. However, Dharmin Bai Kashyap (the appellant) challenged the election, alleging that the vote counting was done under insufficient lighting, affecting the fairness of the process.

The sequence of legal proceedings was as follows:

February 7, 2020: The appellant filed an election petition before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Mungeli, requesting a recount due to inadequate lighting at three polling booths.
October 18, 2021: The SDO allowed the petition and ordered a recount.
November 8, 2021: Respondent No. 1 challenged this order in the Chhattisgarh High Court, which ruled that the SDO had not followed the due process of law.
December 20, 2021: After following due process, the SDO again ordered a recount.
December 31, 2021: The recount was conducted, and the appellant, Dharmin Bai Kashyap, was declared the new winner.
January 6, 2022: Respondent No. 1 challenged the recount order, but a Single Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition.
April 25, 2022: The Division Bench of the High Court overturned the Single Bench ruling, setting aside the SDO’s order on the grounds that the election petition did not comply with Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices, and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995.

The matter was then escalated to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues Considered

The Supreme Court had to determine:

Whether an election petition seeking only a recount, without requesting a declaration that the election was void, was maintainable.
Whether the petitioner’s failure to request a recount during the original counting process affected the case.
Whether the procedural requirements under Rule 6 of the 1995 Rules were met.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant, Dharmin Bai Kashyap, argued that:

The SDO correctly ordered a recount after finding that the initial counting occurred under inadequate lighting.
The Single Bench of the High Court was correct in upholding the recount.
The Division Bench erred in requiring compliance with Rule 6, as the recount was ordered based on valid grounds.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sohan Lal v. Babu Gandhi (2003) 1 SCC 108 established that recounting can be ordered if a case is made out.

Arguments by the Respondents

Respondent No. 1, Babli Sahu, argued that:

No formal request for a recount was made immediately after the counting, as required under Rule 80 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995.
The election petition failed to comply with Rule 6 of the 1995 Rules, which requires that a petition must seek a declaration that the election was void or request that another candidate be declared elected.
The petition was procedurally defective and could not be entertained.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

1. Requirement for Election Petitions to Comply with Rule 6

The Court held that an election petition must conform to Rule 6, stating:

“In view of the said Rule 6, there remains no shadow of doubt that in the Election Petition filed under Section 122 of the said Act, the reliefs claimed have to be in consonance with the said Rule 6 of Rules of 1995.”

Since the appellant only requested a recount and did not seek a declaration invalidating the election or declaring a different winner, the petition was legally untenable.

2. Non-Compliance with Rule 80 of the Nirvachan Niyam

The Court also observed that no formal written request for a recount was made immediately after counting, which is a requirement under Rule 80:

“The petitioner having failed to make any application in writing for recounting of votes as required under Section 80 of the Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, the Election Petition filed by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer (R) seeking relief of recounting of votes alone was not maintainable.”

3. Strict Interpretation of Election Laws

The Court reaffirmed that election laws must be interpreted strictly:

“Election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but purely a statutory proceeding, provision for which has to be strictly construed.”

Since the petition failed to comply with procedural requirements, the Court ruled that it was legally invalid.

Supreme Court’s Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that:

“The appeal is dismissed.”

Conclusion

This ruling clarifies that:

Election petitions must comply strictly with statutory requirements. A recount cannot be requested in isolation; the petitioner must seek a broader declaration under Rule 6.
A recount must be requested at the time of counting. If a candidate does not request a recount immediately after counting, they cannot seek it later through an election petition.
Procedural compliance is crucial in election disputes. Failure to follow the prescribed process leads to dismissal of claims, even if they have merit.

The judgment reinforces that courts will uphold procedural integrity in election matters to prevent frivolous litigation and ensure fair electoral practices.

Petitioner Name: Dharmin Bai Kashyap.
Respondent Name: Babli Sahu & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti.
Place Of Incident: Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
Judgment Date: 16-08-2023.

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

Download Judgment: dharmin-bai-kashyap-vs-babli-sahu-&-others-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-16-08-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Bela M. Trivedi
See all petitions in Judgment by S.V.N. Bhatti
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2023
See all petitions in 2023 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