- SC warns ECI over missing Sringeri poll records.
- ECI failed to produce original counting video.
- Dispute involves postal-ballot recount, overturned victory.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday warned the Election Commission of India (ECI) that it could draw an adverse inference against the poll body if it failed to produce records relating to the 2023 vote counting in Karnataka’s Sringeri Assembly constituency. The warning came after the ECI told the court that it could not trace the original counting video, a key piece of evidence in a dispute over a postal-ballot recount that overturned Congress leader TD Rajegowda’s victory.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva questioned how the commission could lose records of an election and rejected its explanation as inadequate. The court directed the ECI to produce whatever records were available by the next hearing, scheduled for February 15, 2027.
“How can the Election Commission of India (ECI) say that it has lost its record? Your whole purpose is to hold an election, and you need to have a document. Where is the question of you saying, ‘Yeah, we are trying to trace it’? You gave it to the elected candidate. There is no custody of records. Whatever you have, produce it on the next date. Otherwise, we will have to draw an adverse inference against you. We will not accept these kinds of lame excuses,” the bench told the poll body.
How Did A Postal-Ballot Recount Change The Sringeri Election Result?
Rajegowda won the 2023 Karnataka Assembly election from Sringeri by 201 votes, defeating BJP candidate DN Jeevaraj. However, the result was challenged by Jeevaraj, who questioned the rejection of 279 postal ballots during the original counting.
On April 6, 2026, the Karnataka High Court ordered a recount of postal ballots, including the re-verification of the 279 ballots that had initially been rejected.
The subsequent exercise altered the result. According to the figures recorded in the Supreme Court’s May 11 order, 248 postal-ballot votes previously counted in Rajegowda’s favour were deducted, while two votes were added to Jeevaraj’s tally. Jeevaraj was subsequently declared elected with a reported margin of 52 votes.
Rajegowda challenged the process before the Supreme Court, arguing that the returning officer had gone beyond the High Court’s directions by re-examining ballots that had already been declared valid.
Why Did The Supreme Court Question The Recount?
In its May 11 order, the Supreme Court noted that the returning officer had re-verified 279 rejected postal ballots and recounted a total of 1,530 postal ballots. However, the officer had also re-examined 1,251 ballots that had previously been declared valid.
The bench observed that the exercise appeared to have exceeded the scope of the High Court’s directions and that the consequential steps taken by the returning officer were, prima facie, without legal foundation.
The court directed the ECI to produce the relevant records and ordered that all steps taken following the recount remain in abeyance pending further examination. This allowed Rajegowda to continue as the MLA while the legal dispute remained unresolved.
Why Is The Missing Video Important?
The missing recording has become a central issue because Rajegowda is seeking access to the original counting footage, the video of the May 2026 recount and the election observer’s report.
The video is particularly relevant in light of Guideline 15.25 of the Handbook for Returning Officers, 2023. The guideline provides for the mandatory re-verification of rejected postal ballots when the victory margin is smaller than the number of postal ballots rejected as invalid. It also requires the proceedings to be videographed.
During Wednesday’s hearing, senior advocate Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the ECI, told the bench that the recording of the original counting could not be traced. The judges questioned the commission’s explanation and insisted that it submit the records it could locate.
The court has not yet delivered a final ruling on the validity of the recount. Its latest warning concerns the ECI’s failure to produce the requested material, which could affect how the court assesses the evidence in the ongoing dispute.
What Are The Allegations Of Postal-Ballot Tampering?
The recount dispute has also triggered a criminal case alleging tampering with postal ballots. The case followed allegations that ballots originally counted in Rajegowda’s favour were improperly invalidated during the recount.
Jeevaraj has denied wrongdoing and obtained an interim order from the Karnataka High Court staying further investigation in the case.
The Supreme Court is examining Rajegowda’s challenge to the recount and the actions that followed it. The next hearing is scheduled for February 15, 2027, when the ECI is expected to produce the available records.