A razor-thin margin and numerous rejected ballots justify recounting to verify election results.

The petitioner was declared elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sodpur after the 2022 election, winning by one vote.

Respondent No. 1, an unsuccessful candidate, challenged the election under Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, alleging irregularities in counting and seeking appropriate consequential relief.

The Election Tribunal initially directed recounting, which was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

After further proceedings, including closure and restoration of the petitioner’s right to lead evidence, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the impugned order dated 18 September 2025, allowing the election petition and directing recounting of votes; consequentially, the authorities fixed a date for recounting.

During the writ proceedings, the High Court permitted recounting subject to the result being kept in a sealed cover. The recount was completed and the result was produced before the Court.

Section 122 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 provides that an election may be challenged only through an election petition presented before the prescribed authority and disposed of in the prescribed manner.

The applicable election rules require an election petition to contain the material facts and particulars of the grounds of challenge, and permit a declaration that the returned candidate’s election is void and a further declaration that another candidate was duly elected.

In Sohan Lal v. Babu Gandhi, (2003) 1 SCC 108, the Supreme Court held that a tribunal may direct recounting in an election petition even if the candidate had not first applied for recounting before the Returning Officer, provided the case is made out on the evidence.

Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu, (2023) 10 SCC 461, clarified that recounting may be ordered where justified by the evidence, but an election petition seeking only recounting without the substantive reliefs contemplated by the rules is not maintainable.

The Court also considered the principle that recounting is exceptional and cannot be ordered on mere suspicion, narrow margin, or for a roving inquiry, as reflected in Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind, P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen, Bahoran Lal v. Ganesh Prasad, Vadivelu v. Sundaram, and Kattinokkula Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao.

Raj Kumari v. Asha Devi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3271, was relied upon for the proposition that an order directing recounting may be interlocutory and does not necessarily constitute the final adjudication of the election dispute.

The Court held that the impugned order was passed after adjudication of the election petition and findings regarding irregularities in the counting process; the direction for recounting was therefore a consequential fact-finding measure intended to determine the actual electoral result.

The petitioner’s own evidence showed that he was outside the polling station during counting and lacked personal knowledge of the internal counting process, whereas the respondent had led evidence regarding the alleged irregularities.

The extremely narrow margin of one vote, together with 84 rejected ballots, constituted a compelling factual basis for physical inspection and recounting rather than a mere fishing or roving inquiry.

The Court further found that the impugned order did not finally declare the result or conclusively dispose of the election dispute, making the writ challenge prima facie premature and not maintainable.

Since recounting had already been conducted under the Court’s supervision and the result had been placed in a sealed cover, interference at that stage was also unwarranted.

It held that the direction for recounting was legally permissible, supported by the evidence and the one-vote margin coupled with the substantial number of rejected ballots, and did not warrant interference under Article 226.

The writ petition challenging the order dated 18 September 2025 and the consequential letter dated 23 September 2025 was dismissed.

No interference was made with the recounting process or the consequential proceedings.