'Concern is not who's in power but how': SC orders recount of votes in Prayagraj Gram Pradhan election

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said each vote has its own value irrespective of its effect on the final outcome of the election and its sanctity has to be protected.

"This court’s concern lies away from who is in power, and instead is in how one got to power. This process has to be in accordance with constitutional principles and established norms - if not, then such a person has to be deprived of the power, and the decision-making by the people must begin once more," a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh said.

The court allowed a plea by Vijay Bahadur, an unsuccessful candidate, in Gram Pradhan poll held in 2021 for the village Chaka alias Chak, Saidabad, Tehsil Handia, Prayagraj. It set aside the High Court's decision and restored the Sub Divisional Magistrate order for recount of votes.

"Each and every citizen, when it comes to choosing representatives in the parliamentary system, is indeed equal, when in other scenarios they may not be so, for a variety of reasons - class and caste divisions that are still deeply entrenched, gender inequality, lack of awareness and opportunities for disabled persons, etc," the bench said.

The court emphasised, this momentary equality assumes further importance as it signifies the achievability of the aspiration of equality for all through constitutional mechanisms. 

"Granted that equality in other spheres cannot only be a product of constitutional action, and have to be accompanied by social change, but nonetheless, the strength of constitutional action is manifested thereby," the court said.

The appellant here raised the issue inconsistency between the Presiding Officer’s statement that in polling booths 43, 44 and 45 a total of 1194 votes were cast, and the final tally given under ‘Form 46’ showed a total of 1213 votes cast over there. 

The bench noted the victory margin was 37 votes, and so, in a sense, victory position would remain yet elusive of the appellant.

However, the bench asked, "Why should there be any difference?" 

It held in the present facts, a recount would be justified.

The court also noted deliberate attempts were made to benefit the "ultimate victor" such as the use of police force to remove the appellant from the vicinity of the polling area. The diary of the Presiding Officer of the polling booths, which is an essential document recording the casting of votes, could not be found despite a concerted effort, it pointed out.

The court stressed the candidates in the election cannot be denied their presence on the day of voting and inspect its records. 

"If the Presiding Officers’ records are missing and cannot be verified, it can be found that the final conclusion is within the realm of questionability. Each and every document pertaining to an election is important and all efforts should be made to preserve the same," the bench said.