Election Petition Must Be Decided On Materials On Record, Can't Be Remanded To Fill Evidentiary Gaps : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that an election petition must be decided based on the materials available on record, and it is impermissible for the Appellate Court to remand election petitions for reconsideration merely to lead to fresh evidence or direct the calling of witnesses and expert examination when such issues were not raised before the Election Tribunal. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the case where the Trial Court set aside the Respondent's election to the Sarpanch post after finding merit in the Appellant's allegation of double voting. The First Appellate Court's decision to uphold the trial court's findings to hold a fresh election was interfered with by the High Court under the Writ Jurisdiction. The High Court remanded the election petition for fresh consideration, with directions to call voters as witnesses and obtain expert fingerprint analysis of thumb impressions on voter lists. The High Court reasoned that because the election petition was decided without adopting "required recourses" such as presenting voters as witnesses or obtaining expert evidence. It held that such conclusions were "ill made" and "based on pure surmises." Aggrieved by the High Court's ruling, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that the High Court cannot fill in the gap by directing reconsideration of evidence through examination of the voters as witness, which was never sought during the trial. Setting aside the High Court's order, the Court observed “that the High Court ought not to have issued such directions for leading evidence as the Election Petition is to be decided on the basis of evidence available on record as may be led by the parties.” The Court said that the High Court's directions amounted to impermissibly allowing the Respondent to fill a lacuna in their case. “The appeal ought to have been decided on the basis of the material available before it and there could not have been such sweeping directions to call for witnesses and expert evidence when neither of the parties had raised any such issue before the Tribunal. There is no scope of filling up of lacuna in proceedings relating to Election Petition.”, the Court observed. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of, while restoring the writ petition to its original file and directing the High Court to decide the matter afresh on merits based solely on the existing evidentiary record. Cause Title: RAKAM SINGH VERSUS AMIT & ORS.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 318Click here to download orderAppearance: For Petitioner(s) Mr. Karan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Manik Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Srishti Singla, Adv. Mr. Shrey Kapoor, AOR For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv. Mr. Harsh Kumar Agarwal, Adv. Mr. D.k. Garg, Adv. Mr. B. K. Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Sourabh Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Prateek Parasher, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mahabir Singh, Adv.

Election Petition Must Be Decided On Materials On Record, Can't Be Remanded To Fill Evidentiary Gaps : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

The Court set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order directing voter examination and fingerprint analysis in a double voting case, as no such plea was made before the Election Tribunal.

Tags