'How Can He Tamper When Entire Thing Is In EC's Custody?' Karnataka High Court Orally Asks In BJP Leader's Plea Against Ballot Tampering FIR

While hearing BJP leader DN Jeevaraja's plea against an FIR over alleged tampering of ballot boxes during the vote recount of Sringeri assembly constituency, the Karnataka High Court on Monday (June 8) orally asked as to how could the petitioner tamper with ballot papers when the entire thing was in Election Commission's custody.

For context the high court had in an election petition directed in its 06.04.2026 order had ordered recount of postal ballots.. When the matter went to the Supreme Court in an plea filed by Congress's TD Rajegowda, the apex court directed restoration of status quo ante (state of affairs before the recount), observing that the Returning Officer's exercise of reverifying already validated postal ballots was prima facie invalid. Rajegowda had argued before the Supreme Court that, though the High Court had only ordered the re-verification of 279 rejected postal ballots, the Returning Officer also recounted 562 valid postal ballots that were in Rajegowda's favour.

On Tuesday, after hearing the matter for some time Justice M Nagaprasanna continued the operation of earlier interim order staying the FIR and listed the matter on June 19.

The bench then inquired from the counsel for respondent no.2 [complainant] as to who had the custody of election papers.

"Is he [petitioner] in custody of election papers or is it in the custody of the Election Commission? How can this man tamper with the ballot papers when the entire thing is in custody of the Election Commission?..." the Court orally asked.

After hearing the matter for some the court listed it on June 19 and tagged the case along with the connected petition filed by the Deputy Election Commissioner.

Background

The High Court, had in another matter, had previously ordered a recount of the postal ballot votes entered in the 2023 Sringeri Assembly Constituency Elections, which had declared Congress candidate T.D. Rajegowda victorious.

BJP's Jeevaraja had challenged the election results through a three-year-long litigation that culminated in his favour in April 2026, resulting in a vote recount on May 2, 2026.

During the recount, the returning officer verified the previously rejected 279 postal ballots, which resulted in a favourable outcome for the BJP candidate. 255 postal votes in favour of Congress legislator Rajegowda were deemed invalid in the recount.

As a result, the BJP candidate Jeevaraj was declared the winner with a lead of 52 votes under Section 66 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, on May 3, 2026. However after the Supreme Court in its May 11 order observed:

"By doing so, it appears that the Returning Officer deducted 248 postal ballot votes cast in favour of the appellant from out of the 562 postal ballot votes earlier counted in his favour and 2 postal ballot votes were added to the 689 postal ballot votes earlier counted in favour of respondent No. 1. On the strength of this exercise, which went beyond the scope of what was directed by the High Court, we are informed certain further steps have been taken. As such further steps are, prima facie, without legal foundation, in the light of what we have recorded above, we are of the opinion that the matter requires deeper examination...
All steps taken pursuant to the aforestated exercise by the Returning Officer, shall remain in abeyance till the next hearing. If that requires restoration of the status quo ante, steps shall be taken in that regard forthwith".

Subsequently a complaint was filed with Chikkamanglur Police Station alleging that the BJP candidate had committed offences under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for cheating), 471 (using forged document as genuine), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 149 (common object) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 136 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (election irregularities).

The FIR alleged that the BJP candidate conspired with the returning officer and deputy commissioner to manipulate the recounting process and invalidate the postal votes in favour of the Congress candidate.

Challenging the aforesaid FIR, Jeevaraja approached the High Court, stating that the complaint was politically motivated. The deputy commissioner has also filed a similar plea before the High Court seeking to quash the FIR registered against him.

Case Title: D.N. Jeevaraja v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: WP 14698/2026