The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that election tribunals cannot order a recount of votes without ensuring procedural fairness, recording reasoned findings, and affording hearing to all parties against whom allegations are made. The judgment underscores that judicial orders in electoral disputes must be transparent, legally grounded, and free from arbitrary direction.
The Verdict
The appellant, the elected Sarpanch, lost the writ appeal. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the Single Judge’s order remanding the election petition to the Election Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The core legal holding is that an election tribunal must provide opportunity of hearing to all parties named in the petition and record detailed reasons before ordering a vote recount. The relief granted was a direction to conclude proceedings within three months, ensuring compliance with statutory procedure and principles of natural justice.
Background & Facts
The appellant contested and won the 2025 Sarpanch election in Gram Panchayat Chorbhatti, securing 489 votes against respondent No. 4’s 451 votes. Respondent No. 4 filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, alleging that votes for the appellant and respondent No. 6 were interchanged in Booth No. 79. He sought recounting of votes and cancellation of the appellant’s election.
The Election Tribunal initially ordered a recount on 16.04.2025, which was quashed by the High Court in WPC No. 1975/2025 for violating Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995. On remand, the Tribunal framed issues, recorded evidence from some parties, and again ordered a recount on 26.05.2025 without hearing other respondents named in the petition - specifically respondents No. 6 and 7.
The appellant challenged this second recount order in WPC No. 2698/2025. The Single Judge allowed the petition, setting aside the recount order on grounds of non-compliance with Rule 11 and failure to record reasons. The appellant now appealed this remand order, arguing it would enable the petitioner to supplement his case.
The Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether an Election Tribunal may order a recount of votes without affording opportunity of hearing to all parties against whom allegations are made in the election petition, and without recording reasoned findings demonstrating satisfaction of the mandatory conditions under Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats Rules, 1995.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The appellant’s senior counsel contended that the remand order was legally unsustainable because it permitted respondent No. 4 to cure procedural lacunae in his petition. He argued that the Election Tribunal had already recorded extensive evidence, including cross-examination of witnesses, and had granted ample opportunity to all parties. The tribunal’s order was a non-speaking order, but the Single Judge erred by inventing a new ground - failure to hear non-applicants - that was never pleaded by any party. He relied on Supreme Court precedents in B.Y. Narasimha Prasad and Nadakeruppa, emphasizing that remand cannot be a routine tool to allow parties to improve their case. He further argued that the recount application was time-barred under Section 80(5) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, and that the tribunal had failed to decide the preliminary issue of maintainability.
For the Respondent
The State counsel defended the Single Judge’s order as a necessary safeguard for natural justice. He submitted that the tribunal had failed to issue notice to respondents No. 6 and 7, despite their replies being on record and allegations being specifically directed against them. The order was not meant to permit new pleadings but to ensure compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements under Rule 11 and the Supreme Court’s directives in Arikala Narasa Reddy and Victoria Memorial Hall. The remand was confined to curing procedural defects, not expanding the scope of the petition.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court carefully examined the Single Judge’s reasoning and found it legally sound. The court noted that the Election Tribunal’s recount order was devoid of any discussion on whether the conditions laid down in Arikala Narasa Reddy (2014) 5 SCC 312 were satisfied. These conditions include: (i) prima facie case of irregularity, (ii) full particulars pleaded, (iii) no fishing inquiry, (iv) opportunity to object, and (v) preservation of ballot secrecy.
"The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice-delivery system... Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum."
The court emphasized that the tribunal’s failure to extend hearing to respondents No. 6 and 7, despite their replies being filed, violated the principle of audi alteram partem. The Single Judge did not create a new case; he merely enforced existing statutory and constitutional obligations.
The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the remand would allow respondent No. 4 to fill lacunae. The direction was not to permit new pleadings or evidence beyond the scope of the original petition, but to ensure that all parties named in the petition were heard before any consequential order was passed. The court also clarified that the preliminary issue of maintainability remained open for adjudication by the tribunal on remand.
The judgment reaffirmed that judicial orders in election disputes must be reasoned, transparent, and procedurally impeccable. The sanctity of the electoral process demands that no party be deprived of an opportunity to defend against allegations, and that no order affecting electoral outcomes be passed without a clear, documented application of mind.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a binding precedent for all election tribunals under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj system and provides guidance for similar statutes across India. Practitioners must now ensure that any order for recounting votes is preceded by: (1) formal notice to all parties against whom allegations are made, (2) opportunity to lead evidence or file objections, and (3) a speaking order that explicitly records satisfaction of the Arikala Narasa Reddy conditions.
The ruling limits the scope of remand orders to procedural compliance only. Courts cannot remand cases to allow parties to introduce new facts or pleadings. However, if a tribunal has failed to hear a party who is already on record and has filed a reply, remand is not only permissible but mandatory.
This decision also reinforces that jurisdictional objections - such as time-barred applications or lack of maintainability - must be decided at the threshold. Failure to do so renders subsequent orders vulnerable to being set aside. Practitioners should now routinely raise preliminary objections in election petitions and insist on their adjudication before evidence is recorded.
The judgment’s emphasis on reasoned orders will likely lead to greater scrutiny of tribunal decisions on appeal, raising the standard of judicial accountability in local electoral disputes.
