
SC overturns sarpanch election results in Haryana: When can courts order a recount of votes?
Mohit Kumar, who had been declared as defeated in the previous result and later approached the SC, was announced the winner as he beat the originally elected sarpanch, Kuldeep Singh, by 51 votes. Mohit challenged the initial result of the election, which took place in November 2022, alleging that a presiding officer had swapped votes between him and Kuldeep at a polling booth.
Experts believe that the case marked the first instance of the SC conducting a recount of EVM votes.
Here is a look legal pathways available for challenging election outcomes and the remedies courts can provide.
Legal framework for challenging an election
The validity of the results of Parliamentary, Assembly, or state council elections can be challenged by filing an election petition before the High Court of the particular state in which the election was conducted. Election petitions against local government elections are to be filed at the district-level civil courts. The petition can only be filed by a candidate or an elector related to the election in question. Also, it has to be filed within 30 to 45 days from the date of declaration of results.
The petition must contain a concise statement of all 'material facts' on which the challenge is based. If a petition has allegations of 'corrupt practices', it must provide details such as the names of individuals involved, and the date and place of the alleged act.
The SC has repeatedly held that allegations of corrupt practices are quasi-criminal and require a high standard of proof. Vague or ambiguous claims are not entertained, and a petition that fails to state material facts can be dismissed at the outset.
Grounds for invalidating an election
Courts can declare an election void on several grounds. This includes:
When courts can order a recount of votes
A recount of votes is one of the remedies a court can order, but it is not granted lightly. As it involves re-examining ballots, it is seen as potentially compromising the secrecy of the vote, a cornerstone of free and fair elections. Therefore, a court will only order a recount if the petitioner presents specific, material facts and provides sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that a mistake in counting is probable and that a recount is necessary.
Courts usually order vote recounts to take place at the location where the election was held — unlike in the case of the Panipat sarpanch election dispute, in which the SC recounted the votes at its premises.
When courts can declare a new winner
It is rare – but not unprecedented – for a court to void an election and declare another candidate as the winner. The court must be satisfied that the petitioner or another candidate received a majority of the valid votes.
Alternatively, the petitioner must prove that they would have secured a majority of votes if not for the votes obtained by the winning candidate through corrupt practices. This requires concrete evidence to quantify the votes tainted by corruption.
In February 2024, the SC declared a new electoral winner in the Chandigarh mayoral election after it found that the polling station presiding officer had wrongfully marked eight paper ballots as invalid. All the votes had been cast for the losing candidate. The court ordered that these votes be treated as validly cast in the losing candidate's favour, which helped him win the election.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India Today
25 minutes ago
- India Today
How Constitution shields Chief Election Commissioner from arbitrary removal
Amid growing friction between the Congress-led Opposition and the Election Commission of India (ECI), India Today has learnt that the Opposition is considering initiating a formal notice of removal against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. This unprecedented move follows allegations by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and others, accusing the Election Commission of India of large-scale 'vote theft' and procedural irregularities, especially during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar and the conduct of the 2024 Lok Sabha development raises questions about the removal process of a Chief Election Commissioner and the legal framework that governs office of the Chief Election Commissioner is a high constitutional post, entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring free and fair elections in the country. Given its importance, the Constitution of India provides a strong safeguard for the independence and autonomy of this office, laying down a removal process that is as stringent as that for a judge of the Supreme ON OUSTING OF CEC The primary provision governing the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner is articulated in Article 324(5) of the Constitution of India. Article 324(5) of the Constitution states, in relevant part — "...the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court..."To understand the process, one must examine Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which outlines how a Supreme Court judge may be removed. According to this provision, a judge can be removed only by an order of the President, following an address passed by each House of Parliament. The address must be supported by both an absolute majority of the total membership of the House and a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. Removal is permitted only on grounds of 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity.'The term 'proved' is crucial, as it implies that a formal enquiry must precede any parliamentary action. A similar process applies to the Chief Election investigation and enquiry mechanism is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Article 124(4) of the Constitution says "A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity."advertisementAlthough the Constitution does not define 'misbehaviour,' it is generally understood to include wilful misconduct, corruption, moral turpitude, abuse of office, or repeated dereliction of duty. Misbehaviour must be deliberate and sustained, not accidental or isolated. Cumulative acts that reflect a pattern may also qualify.'Incapacity,' on the other hand, refers to physical or mental conditions that render an official unfit to discharge their begin the removal process, a motion must first be introduced in either House of Parliament. It requires signatures from at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha, depending on the House in which it is submitted, the Speaker (in the Lok Sabha) or the Chairman (in the Rajya Sabha) decides whether to admit the motion. Admission does not imply guilt, but is necessary to initiate further proceedings. If admitted, a three-member enquiry committee is constituted. This committee must include a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished committee investigates the charges, frames specific allegations, and gives the CEC an opportunity to respond. Once the enquiry is completed, the committee submits its findings to the presiding officer of the House where the motion was the committee finds no evidence of misbehaviour or incapacity, the process ends and the motion is dropped. If the findings support the charges, the motion is presented to both Houses of Parliament along with the Houses must then debate and pass the motion with the required special majority. If the motion passes in both Houses during the same session, an address is sent to the President of India, who is constitutionally bound to remove the Chief Election is important to note that this removal mechanism is separate from other ways in which the CEC may vacate office. As per Section 4 of the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991, the term of office for a CEC is six years or until the age of sixty-five, whichever is earlier. The CEC may also resign voluntarily by submitting a written resignation to the President.- Ends


Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Seize assets of school directors in Shalarth ID scam: Bawankule
Nagpur: Maharashtra revenue minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule has demanded strict action against school directors accused of duping job-seekers in the Shalarth ID scam, insisting that teachers caught in the deceitful web are victims, not culprits. Bawankule urged concerned authorities to attach properties of school directors who collected money from unemployed youth by promising teaching jobs. "Many have mortgaged their homes, taken loans, and still struggled for employment. It is the school managements that misused their authority and fabricated Shalarth IDs. The govt will not abandon teachers who are innocent in this matter," he said while addressing reporters after a review meeting at Bachat Bhavan in the city on Monday. Bawankule added he has already held discussions with school education minister Dada Bhuse and would push for immediate relief and justice for affected teachers. On the flood situation across Maharashtra, Bawankule said the state machinery was placed on high alert. "Chief minister Devendra Fadnavis and disaster management minister Girish Mahajan are personally monitoring relief efforts. Red-alert districts are under strict watch, food packets and essentials are being airlifted, and damage surveys have begun to expedite compensation," he said. The guardian minister for Nagpur and Amravati districts also targeted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for questioning electoral rolls and the integrity of electronic voting machines (EVMs). "Revision of rolls is a continuous process, and objections can be filed within the stipulated time. Congress failed to act then, but after eight months Gandhi suddenly cries foul. When they win, EVMs are acceptable; when they lose, they blame the machines. Such double standards only undermine public trust," Bawankule remarked. Outlining his long-term vision, Bawankule said the govt is committed to making Nagpur a model city by 2029. "Large funds have been allocated by CM Fadnavis through District Planning Committee. Projects will roll out in three phases, covering urban infrastructure, rural employment, and livestock development via self-help groups. A developed Nagpur is no longer a dream, but an achievable target," he said. 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.


The Hindu
35 minutes ago
- The Hindu
SC gives bail to former West Bengal Minister in cash-for-jobs scam
The Supreme Court on Monday (August 18, 2025) granted bail to former West Bengal Minister Partha Chatterjee in a cash-for-jobs scam case, noting his continued detention for three years without trial is a travesty of justice. A Bench headed by Justice M.M. Sundresh directed the framing of charges in the case on learning that sanction has been granted for his prosecution. The Bench ordered the former Minister to be released only after the trial court completed the examination of material witnesses in the case within two months. The apex court also granted bail to Subires Bhattacharya and Shantiprasad Sinha, both of whom had held senior positions in the State's education bodies, in the case. Mr. Chatterjee was the Education Minister of West Bengal. The top court had granted him bail in a connected money laundering case in December last year. However, Mr. Chatterjee was already in CBI custody at the time. The CBI was investigating the predicate offences against him, including under the Prevention of Corruption Act.