LexVIJAY BAHADUR versus SUNIL KUMAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 11 : 2025 INSC 332 Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 14311 of 2024) 06 March 2025 [Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Allegation of disparity in the counting of votes in the election for position of ‘Gram Pradhan’. Whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was justified in ordering a recount of the votes cast. Headnotes† U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 – Election for ‘Gram Pradhan’ – The genesis of the appellant’s discontent was the inconsistency between the Presiding Officer’s statement to him that in polling booths 43, 44 and 45 a total of 1194 votes were cast, and the final tally given under ‘Form 46’ which showed a total of 1213 votes cast in the said booths – Election Petition – The Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered a recount of the votes casted – Correctness: Held: The allegation made is that there is a disparity in the count of votes informed to the appellant and that finally disclosed in the official form – It relates to 19 votes, i.e., the difference between 1193 and 1213 – The margin of victory of the respondent was 37 votes, and so, in a sense, victory of position would remain yet elusive of the appellant – However, the concern lies is in how one got to power – This 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 – When the officer was present there and he informed the candidate, appellant herein, of the number of votes cast, then why there was any difference in number – Four persons contested for the post of ‘Pradhan’ – Three of the four persons submitted by way of affidavit that they had doubts regarding the propriety of the election, and they would support a recount of votes – There was also use of police force * Author 12 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports to remove the appellant from the vicinity of the polling area – The diary of the Presiding Officer of the polling booths, which is an essential document recording the casting of votes, could not be found despite a concerted effort – 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 manner in which election was conducted, and that important documents pertaining to the election are missing and such absence is unexplained, the recount in the present facts would be justified. [Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18] Case Law Cited Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai & Ors. [1964] 6 SCR 238 : AIR 1964 SC 1249 – followed. Vadivelu v. Sundaram [2000] Supp. 3 SCR 642 : (2000) 8 SCC 355; Suresh Prasad Yadav v. Jai Prakash Mishra [1975] 3 SCR 21 : (1975) 4 SCC 822; Beli Ram Bhalaik v. Behari Lal Khachi (1975) 4 SCC 417; Satyanarain Dudhani v. Uday Kumar Singh (1993) Supp. 2 SCC 82; Udey Chand v. Surat Singh [2009] 15 SCR 147 : (2009) 10 SCC 170 – relied on. T.N Seshan v. Union of India [1995] Supp. 2 SCR 106 : (1995) 4 SCC 611; Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India [2023] 9 SCR 1 : (2023) 6 SCC 161; Ram Adhar Singh v. District Judge, Ghazipur 1985 SCC OnLine All 246; Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind [1975] Supp. 1 SCR 202 : (1976) 1 SCC 687 – referred to. List of Websites Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum https:// presidentlincoln.illinois.gov/gettysburg List of Acts U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947; Right to Information Act, 2005; Representation of the People Act, 1951; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Election; Election for ‘Gram Pradhan’; Recount of votes; Democracy; Free and fair elections; Constitutional governance; Fundamental rights. [2025] 4 S.C.R. 13 Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14311 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in WRITC No. 35734 of 2022 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Sushant Kumar Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Mangal Prasad, Ajay Yadav, Anurag Singh, Prithvi Yadav, Ms. Radha Rajput, Mitr Rao, Ankur Yadav. Adv. for the Respondents: Ms. Sweta Rani, Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. PRELUDE “At the bottom of all the tributes pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.