LI Network
Published on: 11 August 2023 at 14:20 IST
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that merely having a belief that there has been an improper reception, refusal, or rejection of votes will not be sufficient grounds to support an order for vote inspection or recounting.
This pronouncement came from the bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan.
The case revolved around a petition filed to challenge an order issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer/Prescribed Authority, Mirzapur, in an Election Petition.
The order had directed the recounting of votes.
The elections in question were for the Panchayat in Uttar Pradesh in 2021.
In this particular election, the petitioner contested for the post of Pradhan (head) of Gram Panchayat Kolahi, which was reserved for an ‘OBC Category Candidate’. The petitioner secured 471 votes and was declared the winner by a margin of 23 votes.
The allegations in the case pertained to improper rejection of valid votes, improper acceptance of invalid ballots, and discrepancies in the total number of votes cast.
The High Court emphasized that while deciding an election petition, the court should keep in mind that the right to elect, though fundamental to democracy, is not a fundamental or common law right. It is a statutory creation and thus subject to statutory limitations. An election petition is not an action at common law or in equity; it is a special jurisdiction governed by the statute creating it.
The court referred to several precedents to underline that an election petition is based on rights created by statutes, and if statutory requirements are mandatory, the court cannot waive non-compliance.
The High Court stated that mere allegations of manipulation in valid and invalid votes, mixing and counting of votes, or irregularities in the election process are not sufficient grounds to order recounting. For recounting to be justified, a candidate must present a concise statement of material facts supported by evidence, demonstrating a specific case for recounting.
The court observed that the allegations in this case lacked substance, being vague and cryptic, and that the onus to challenge the election lies with the petitioner.
The court stressed the importance of clear and precise pleadings in election challenges.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the evidence brought forward by the polling agent present during the counting lacked support for the petitioner’s claims of improper vote handling. The tribunal had not found any irregularities committed by the Election Officer during counting.
The bench concluded that the pleadings in the case and the provisions of the election rules did not provide sufficient grounds for recounting.
The petitioner had failed to raise specific objections at the relevant stages of the election process, and the court found the order for recounting to be arbitrary and unsustainable.
