Election mandates cannot be invalidated on minor technicalities or unsubstantiated allegations of counting irregularities.

The Applicant and Respondent No. 1 were elected ward members of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Baikunthpur

On 01.01.2022, an election for the post of President was held. The Applicant alleged that she secured 10 valid votes, whereas Respondent No. 1 secured 9 valid votes and 1 invalid vote

She contended that the Presiding Officer (Respondent No. 2) illegally counted an invalid vote in favor of Respondent No. 1, leading to a tie, and subsequently resorted to a lottery system where Respondent No. 1 was declared the winner

The Applicant filed an Election Petition under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961.

During the trial, a judicial inspection of the ballot box (09.05.2024) indicated that two votes for Respondent No. 1 failed to comply with marking requirements under Rule 10(4) of the 1998 Rules

the Trial Court dismissed the petition on 07.05.2025, prompting this Revision

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in overlooking the judicial inspection note dated 09.05.2024 regarding the validity of ballot markings

2. Whether the election of Respondent No. 1 was vitiated by the improper acceptance of invalid votes and violation of the prescribed counting rules

3. Whether the Applicant, having participated in the lottery system without protest, is estopped from challenging the election result

Sections 23 and 26 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, which prescribe summary procedures for election petitions and the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction

Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Election of President & Vice President) Rules, 1998, specifically Rules 10-13, regarding ballot marking, counting, and the finality of the Presiding Officer's decision

Vijay Bahadur v. Sunil Kumar (2025) 4 SCC 180 established that the secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct and re-counts are rare

Ajmera Shyam v. Smt. Kova Laxmi (2026) 3 SCC 373 was cited to affirm that popular mandates should not be nullified on minor technicalities or clinical legal analysis

The Court held that the summary nature of proceedings under Section 23 requires focusing on the substance of the dispute over technicalities

the oral testimony of the Returning Officer (PW-2) confirmed that voter identity was never revealed and the process followed standard transparency

the Court observed that the Applicant participated in the lottery process without any written protest or objection at the time of the election. By taking a chance in the lottery and losing, the Applicant was estopped from subsequently challenging its validity

The Court emphasized that in cases with narrow margins, courts must be cautious; a "windfall of chance discovery" of illegal ballots should not override a declared result unless gross illegality is proved

the Applicant failed to provide cogent evidence that the election's purity was compromised

The High Court dismissed the Revision, finding no merit in the application. The order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Baikunthpur, was upheld