Karnataka: Sringeri result fluctuations expose poll process faultlines

Postal ballot woes, election plea delays add to confusion.

Bengaluru: The Sringeri Assembly constituency has, of late, been witness to a musical chair of sorts.

On May 13, 2023, Congress’ T D Rajegowda won the seat by 201 votes against BJP’s D N Jeevaraj, who petitioned the Karnataka high court, questioning the rejection of 279 postal ballots.

Almost three years after the election, on May 2, 2026, a high court-ordered recount of postal ballots overturned the 2023 result and declared Jeevaraj the winner by 52 seats, unseating Rajegowda.

In a dramatic shift, Rajegowda’s valid postal ballot count had plunged from 569 to 314 (255 votes are invalidated), while Jeevaraj’s tally dropped by only two votes (to 690).

Rajegowda filed a case against Jeevaraj alleging “tampering, double crossing of ballots” and procedural lapses, while Jeevaraj approached Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot, urging him that he be administered the oath of office, saying there was a delay by Assembly Speaker U T Khader in doing so.

When the high court stayed the FIR, Rajegowda approached the Supreme Court, which (on May 15) ordered “status quo ante” till the next hearing on May 21, restoring Rajegowda’s status as MLA.

The political and legal battle escalated. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his deputy called it a “test case” of “vote dacoity” by BJP.

The episode has spotlighted how prolonged election litigations can produce competing mandates, administrative uncertainty and public confusion long after votes are cast, while exposing the vulnerability of postal ballots, questioning the discretionary powers of returning officers and the absence of strict timelines in adjudicating election petitions.

This is not an isolated case. Last February, the Supreme Court upheld the election of Congress MLA from Malur K Y  Nanjegowda, after a recounting of votes.

In Jayanagar, Congress candidate Sowmya Reddy petitioned the court citing discrepancies in postal ballot counting after BJP’s C K Ramamurthy won by 16 votes following a recount. Three years later, the final verdict in this case is still awaited.

Interestingly, most disputes are related to postal ballots, which require manual scrutiny of declarations, signatures and procedural compliance under form 13A, which makes them vulnerable to both human error and manipulation.

Delaying justice?

A former chief electoral officer said the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951, envisages disposal of election petitions within six months, but practical realities make that timeline difficult to achieve as election petitions involve adversarial proceedings, detailed hearings, cross-examination of witnesses, scrutiny of election records and multiple interlocutory applications. Add to this, the heavy pendency in courts. Many of the cases eventually reach the Supreme Court.

“Prolonged litigation weakens legitimacy of the mandate,” he added.

In India, recounting is not automatic and is allowed only when there are pleaded irregularities like mismatch in ballot account, tabulation errors and rejected or accepted ballots being wrongly counted.

Speaker U T Khader with D N Jeevaraj (BJP) after administering him the oath of office at Vidhana Soudha. Jeevaraj was declared elected MLA of Sringeri after votes were recounted. The Apex Court has since ordered status quo ante restoring Rajegowda

For parliamentary and Assembly elections, recount is allowed under the RP Act, 1951 and the conduct of election rules.

Usually, the candidate first seeks recount before the returning officer (RO). Once results are declared, the challenge is only through an election petition before the high court within 45 days after the results are declared.

Constitutional lawyer Harish Narsappa said the Sringeri dispute demonstrates why India urgently needed structural reforms in election adjudication.

“The courts are overburdened. But election petitions need to be prioritised as delay undermines democracy. The verdict should be out within six months to a year. Today, both the defeated candidate and citizens are filing election petitions, which calls for a new jurisprudence.”

“Also, the burden of proof in election petitions is extremely high. Petitioners must establish procedural irregularities with documentary precision while also overcoming multiple technical objections,” Narsappa said.

The petitions will automatically reduce if election officers are well trained and have high integrity and efficiency, feel experts.

“You cannot expect an official to be efficient suddenly on the day of polling or counting, when we generally lack the culture of efficiency. Neither the EC nor the parties want reforms that ensure zero political influence over electoral process,” he said.

In the Sringeri case, Jeevaraj claimed his election agent had sought recounting twice.

“The RO did not order a recount. I challenged Rajegowda’s narrow margin victory in court. If there was no foul play, why did Rajegowda appeal against my plea in court? He should have agreed for a recount,” he contended.

Under election law, candidates and counting agents can seek recount or raise objections during counting.

The RO is expected to examine every written objection and issue a reasoned order, either accepting or rejecting the request.

“If discrepancies are serious, it could be due to inadequate training or outright complicity that warrant disciplinary action, criminal investigation and institutional accountability,” said another former EC official.

Such prolonged disputes raise a troubling constitutional question: can electoral legitimacy survive when judicial outcomes arrive years after governments are formed and political careers altered?