The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the recount of votes in a 2022 sarpanch election in Dhar district, finding that a one-vote victory margin, 84 rejected ballots and evidence concerning alleged counting irregularities justified physical verification of the votes.
Justice Sandeep N Bhatt dismissed the challenge brought by Sanjay Maliwal, who was declared elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sodpur after securing 758 votes against rival candidate Kavita Thakur’s 757. The Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution with the election authority’s September 18, 2025 order directing a recount.
The Court observed on September 17 that where an election dispute involved a razor-thin margin of a single vote and as many as 84 rejected ballots, physical inspection and recounting provided a legally recognised means of determining whether allegations of improper acceptance or rejection of votes were borne out by the numbers.
Recount Already Completed During High Court Proceedings
The election was conducted across three polling booths in Gram Panchayat Sodpur, with Maliwal being declared the winner on July 14, 2022. Thakur challenged the result and sought a recount, triggering litigation that continued for more than four years.
During the latest High Court proceedings, the Court allowed the recount to take place but directed that the result should not be declared. Instead, it ordered the outcome to be placed in a sealed cover. The recount was subsequently completed and the result, along with the relevant records, was produced before the Court.
Maliwal contended that directing a recount effectively granted the final relief sought by Thakur in her election petition. The High Court rejected the argument, noting that the election authority had first recorded findings on the issues raised before it and found irregularities in the counting process.
According to the Court, recounting followed as a consequence of those findings and was intended to enable determination of the actual election result in accordance with law. The impugned order itself did not finally declare the result.
Winner Argued Narrow Margin Alone Could Not Justify Recount
Maliwal opposed reopening the counting process on the ground that a close result, by itself, was insufficient to order a recount. His counsel argued that Thakur was required to specifically plead material irregularities and establish them prima facie before the exceptional remedy of recounting could be invoked.
It was further submitted that recounting could not be used merely to dispel suspicion or permit a roving or fishing inquiry. The argument also relied on the principle of ballot secrecy, with Maliwal maintaining that a candidate challenging an election had to substantiate allegations of irregularity before votes could be physically examined.
Thakur’s counsel, however, maintained that the alleged irregularities had been supported by evidence. Her lawyers also referred to Maliwal’s cross-examination, in which he admitted that he remained outside the polling station while counting was underway and therefore lacked personal knowledge of what had occurred inside.
Election Dispute Went Through Multiple Rounds Of Litigation
Thakur initially approached the High Court on July 28, 2022 seeking a recount. That petition was dismissed on August 16, 2022, while granting her liberty to pursue the appropriate legal remedy. She thereafter filed an election petition before the competent authority.
The authority ordered recounting on April 17, 2023. Maliwal challenged that decision, following which the High Court set aside the order on September 21, 2023 and remanded the dispute for reconsideration after giving him an opportunity of hearing.
Proceedings continued before the election authority, where Maliwal was given several opportunities to produce witnesses. His right to lead evidence was eventually closed on July 26, 2024, prompting another challenge.
On February 11, 2025, the High Court once again remanded the matter with strict time-bound directions for completion of evidence. Following those proceedings, the competent authority passed a fresh recount order on September 18, 2025. A letter dated September 23, 2025 subsequently fixed the date for the exercise, and Maliwal challenged both before the High Court.
Court Finds No Ground To Interfere With Recount
Examining the principles governing election recounts, the High Court found that the circumstances went beyond the mere existence of a narrow victory margin. It took into account the one-vote difference, the rejection of 84 ballots and the material concerning alleged irregularities in the counting process.
The Court held that physical recounting was an appropriate mechanism for determining whether allegations relating to the improper rejection or acceptance of ballots were factually supported.
It consequently found no error in the election authority’s decision to permit the recount and declined to interfere with the exercise of its jurisdiction.
The Court also took note of the prolonged history of the dispute, observing that Maliwal had already completed more than four years of his tenure while the litigation remained pending and that the recount itself had since been completed.
