Click the Play button to listen to article

The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld an Election Tribunal's decision refusing to reject an election petition merely because the election petitioner had not sought recounting of votes during the counting process. The Court held that specific allegations of discrepancies in vote tabulation and manipulation of election records raised triable issues which required adjudication on evidence.

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed by the returned candidate challenging the Election Tribunal's rejection of his application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of an election petition.

The election petition had raised a challenge to the election of the petitioner, alleging irregularities in the counting and tabulation of votes at Polling Booth No. 187. The returned candidate argued that recounting was not sought during the counting process on February 23, 2025, as contemplated under Rule 80(1) read with Rule 80(5) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, he contended that the election petition was not maintainable in the absence of a request for recounting at the appropriate stage.

The Court noted that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must examine the election petition as a whole and determine whether its pleadings disclose a cause of action. The defence raised by the returned candidate and disputed questions requiring evidence cannot ordinarily be considered at this preliminary stage.

The Court observed that the absence of a recounting request during counting did not, by itself, dispense with the requirement of examining the entire election petition.

“The mere fact that no request for recounting was made at the time of counting does not, by itself, dispense with the requirement of examining the entire election petition to determine whether it discloses a cause of action or is ex facie barred by law,” the Court remarked.

The Court further noted that the election petitioner had explained that the discrepancies became apparent only after he obtained the certified tabulation chart. The Court clarified that it was not deciding whether this explanation was ultimately sufficient or whether the allegations were true; those questions were for the Election Tribunal to determine.

The Court further held that the District Election Officer's decision not to undertake recounting, reportedly due to lack of authority, could not automatically mean that the statutory election petition was barred.

“The further contention that the District Election Officer had already considered and rejected the request for recounting also does not, by itself, establish that the election petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC,” the Court observed.

The Court noted that the fact that the District Election Officer did not undertake recounting, reportedly on the ground of lack of authority, cannot automatically be equated with a determination that the election petition itself is barred by law.

Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court affirmed the Election Tribunal's order and directed it to proceed with the election petition in accordance with law.

Case Title: Nayan Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh [WPC No. 2568 of 2026]

Full View
Tags: