Vote recount cannot be ordered without a prima facie case supported by material evidence.

The petitioner, a member of Janpad Panchayat Bilha, challenged the Collector and District Election Officer’s order dated 17 August 2026 directing recounting of votes in a pending election petition.

He contended that recounting was ordered before evidence was recorded, without sufficient material and on the mistaken premise that he had consented.

The respondents opposed interference, describing the order as interlocutory and submitting that the petitioner could raise his objections before the Election Tribunal.

Whether the Election Tribunal could order a recount before recording evidence, absent sufficient material establishing a prima facie case for recounting.

Whether alleged consent could, by itself, provide a basis for ordering recounting of votes.

Under the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995, the Tribunal must assess whether the election petition states material facts and sufficiently particularises the grounds relied upon; a recount must be supported by the pleadings and evidence.

The Supreme Court authorities cited in Parvatia establish that recounting is not routine: the secrecy of the ballot must be protected, and a recount requires a prima facie case, pleaded material facts identifying counting irregularities, and an objection to that effect; a roving or fishing inquiry is impermissible.

Consent cannot confer jurisdiction to order a recount without a case being made out.

The Tribunal ordered recounting while the evidence was yet to be recorded.

The High Court found that the order lacked a sufficient evidentiary foundation or other material demonstrating a prima facie need for recounting.

Applying the principles that a recount must be justified by the pleadings and evidence and cannot be used for a fishing inquiry, the Court held that the order could not stand; any alleged consent would not cure that deficiency.

It directed the petitioner to provide his witness list and lead evidence, after which the Tribunal must record that evidence and allow respondent No. 6 to cross-examine the witnesses.

Following a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all parties, the Tribunal may decide whether recounting is warranted in accordance with law.

The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the election petition expeditiously, preferably within 45 days of receiving the order.