After historic EVM recount in SC, scorelines reversed & new sarpanch takes oath
2
Jind: His victory stamped by the first-ever recount of an EVM result in Supreme Court, Mohit Kumar on Thursday took oath as sarpanch of Buvana Lakhu village, 25km from the Panipat district headquarters.
In the last panchayat elections in 2022, Kuldeep Singh was declared the winner and served as the sarpanch for the last 33 months. In the historic recount in SC on Aug 11, the scoreline was reversed and Mohit was found to have got 51 votes more than Kuldeep.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and N K Singh then ordered the Panipat deputy commissioner-cum-election officer to issue a notification within two days declaring the appellant, Mohit, elected, and allowing him to assume office immediately.
He took charge on Thursday.
There were seven candidates for the Buana Lakhu sarpanch post, with the main contenders being Mohit and Kuldeep. Six booths were set up, 65-70, but an error occurred at Booth 69, where the vote counts for the two main candidates got exchanged.
"Of the 3,767 votes polled, I secured 1,051 votes while Kuldeep got 1,000. At Booth 69, the officer transferred 254 of my votes to my opponent, Kuldeep, which triggered the entire dispute," Mohit said on Thursday.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
TV providers are furious: this gadget gives you access to all channels
Techno Mag
Learn More
Undo
Mohit Kumar filed a petition before authorities, alleging irregularities in the counting of votes. A recount was ordered promptly and it revealed Mohit had indeed received 51 votes more than Kuldeep.
"The same day (Nov 2, 2022), the district officer declared me the winner again after a recount. However, my opponent, Kuldeep, obtained a stay order from Punjab and Haryana high court, which remained in effect for over one and a half years," Mohit said.
"I approached the tribunal in Panipat, which again ordered a recount. But my opponent once more secured a stay from high court. In July 2024, I filed a petition in Supreme Court, seeking a recount, but no decision was given at that time. Then, on July 31, 2025, I approached SC again, and on the same day, the court ordered a fresh count," he said.
The unprecedented recount was carried out on the SC premises by the Supreme Court registrar in the presence of both parties and their counsel on Aug 11.
It was a hard-fought victory for Mohit.
"Justice was delayed, but it was served well. The entire village is happy. Now, the entire focus will be on development work. The irregularities in the election were committed by the presiding officer, which have now been rectified after Supreme Court's intervention," he said.
"Today, after a long battle, I finally took the oath as sarpanch. During this period, no development work could be carried out.," Mohit said, adding: "The development works that have been pending for the past three years will be completed in the remaining two years. Our village is home to Olympian Navdeep and many other sportspersons. Building a sports stadium, a library will be among my top priorities."
Stay updated with the latest local news from your
city
on
Times of India
(TOI). Check upcoming
bank holidays
,
public holidays
, and current
gold rates
and
silver prices
in your area.
Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with
Happy Independence Day wishes
,
messages
, and
quotes
!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Can't assume powers Constitution has not vested': Centre warns Supreme Court against judicial overreach
Opposing the Supreme Court fixing a three-month timeline for the President and governor to act on bills forwarded by the state legislature, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has said that the judiciary does not hold answers to all problems in a democracy and 'if any organ [of state] is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another…the consequence would be a constitutional disorder…'. In written submissions to the court, where a five-judge bench is hearing a reference made by the President on whether time schedules can be fixed for the actions of the President or governor, on August 12, Mehta stressed the importance of the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Despite this, he pointed out, 'there are certain zones which remain exclusive to either of the three organs…and cannot be trenched upon by the others. The high plenary positions of Governors and President fall within that zone. While they are political positions, they are also representations of democratic will'. 'While the President is elected and governors are appointed by Council of Ministers [acting through President], direct elections are not the only form of democratic processes in a republican democracy. The positions of power, where appointments are made by elected representatives, are also legitimate centres of democratic faith,' Mehta said. On governors, he said, they 'are thus not to be treated as alien/foreigner in the federating units of the Union. Governors are not just emissaries of the Centre rather representatives of the entire nation in each and every federating unit. They represent national interest and national democratic will in the States as part of the larger Indian constitutional brotherhood.' Responding to the question of granting assent to bills, he said: 'The gubernatorial assent is a high prerogative, plenary, non-justiciable power which is sui generis in nature. Although the power of assent is exercised by the person at the apex of the Executive, however, the assent itself is legislative in nature.' Mehta pointed out that 'this blended and unique nature of assent, clothes it with a constitutional character whereby no judicially manageable standards exist. Thus, despite the expanding contours of judicial review, there are some zones like assent that remain non-justiciable. The classical notion of judicial review cannot be lifted and applied to assent as the factors at play during the grant or withholding of an assent have no legal or constitutional parallel.' Mehta said that 'a wide-ranging judicial review of assent procedures, either post-assent or at a stage anterior to the grant of assent, would potentially destabilise the constitutional balance between organs of State. It would create an institutional hierarchy and upset the constitutional balance of powers between the three organs' and 'has the potential to convert the Indian Constitution, into one which postulates supremacy of Judiciary as a doctrinal principle'. This, he said, was against the 'basic structure of the Constitution' and 'against any justifiable reading of the Constitution as a whole'. Mehta underlined that 'judicial deference and restraint have come to define the high ideals of Indian judiciary, and the judicial branch does not hold keys or solutions for every conundrum that may arise in a democratic polity'. Saying that the Constitution framers, advisedly, left some questions outside the judicial realm, he added: 'This has been recognised as an inherent limitation of judicial procedures and judicial forums across the world….The power of mandamus thus, cannot be exercised over such functionaries owing to their constitutional status and inter-organ comity.' The law officer said that 'each organ of the State in the Constitution has certain core functions, one organ interfering with the core functions of another would breach the separation of powers which is a fundamental feature of Indian Constitution'. Saying that certain political questions may have only democratic remedies under the Constitution, Mehta said: 'In the zest of finding a solution to the problem presented before one organ, such organ must follow the essential feature of separation of powers in such core functions.' He further pointed out that 'when the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. On the other hand, when it designedly sought to keep the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. Since the text of Article 200 or 201 does not provide a specific time limit, no form of judicial review or judicial interpretation can impose the same.' Mehta said that 'the exercise Article 142 is not a supervening judicial power which can override the constitutional provisions or run contrary to them. The Apex Court, even under Article 142, is bound by constitutional provisions and principles'. He added that 'the alleged failure, inaction, or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or even on the justification derived from the Constitution ideals, the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers.' The SG said it 'would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution establishes and would negate the rule of law. The perceived lapses, if any, are to be addressed through constitutionally sanctioned mechanisms such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility, reference procedures or consultative process amongst democratic organs etc. Thus, Article 142 does not empower the Court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head.'
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri to visit Nepal on Sunday
India's Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri will arrive in Kathmandu on Sunday on a two day official visit to Nepal to discuss connectivity, development cooperation and other matters of mutual interest, it was announced on Saturday. Independence Day 2025 Modi signals new push for tech independence with local chips Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose gave India its own currency The foreign secretary of India, who is visiting Nepal at the invitation of his Nepalese counterpart Amrit Bahadur Rai, is scheduled to call on high-level dignitaries in the Himalayan nation. "During Misri's visit, the two foreign secretaries will hold discussions on various aspects of Nepal-India partnership, with focus on connectivity, development cooperation and other matters of mutual interest," Nepal's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Could This NEW Collagen Blend Finally Reduce Your Cellulite? Vitauthority Learn More Undo Misri will leave Kathmandu on August 18 after wrapping up his visit. In New Delhi, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said India attaches high priority to its relations with Nepal under its Neighbourhood First policy. Live Events "The foreign secretary's upcoming visit continues the tradition of regular high-level exchanges between the two countries and will be an opportunity to further advance our bilateral ties," the MEA said. People familiar with the matter said the main focus of Misri's engagements in Kathmandu will be on preparing the ground for Nepal Prime Minister K P Sharma Oli 's trip to New Delhi next month. Oli is likely to visit India around September 16, according to diplomatic sources. However, the official announcement is yet to be made.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'Coalition of willing': Big EU huddle ahead of Zelenskyy-Trump meeting; to discuss peace deal
Britain, France and Germany are set to host a video call on Sunday with Ukraine allies in a 'coalition of the willing' to discuss steps towards peace in the war-torn nation, the French presidency announced. Led jointly by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the meet comes a day before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy 's trip to Washington in the wake of the US-Russia summit. Earlier in the day, Trump revealed he had held late-night discussions with several European leaders, including Nato's secretary general and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during which all sides agreed that the priority must be a lasting peace agreement rather than a temporary ceasefire. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO. It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Retro Lanterns: A Halloween Staple topgadgetlife Shop Now Undo European leaders had voiced concern over Trump's diplomatic overtures to Putin, contending that Zelensky should have been included in the Alaska summit. However, they backed the proposed three-way summit between Zelensky, Putin and Trump as the Alaska meet failed to deliver a ceasefire. In a joint statement, Macron, Merz, Starmer and von der Leyen vowed to keep up pressure on Moscow through sanctions until peace was secured, stressing that Russia cannot veto Ukraine's entry into the EU or Nato. "We will continue to strengthen sanctions and wider economic measures to put pressure on Russia's war economy until there is a just and lasting peace," said the European joint statement.
