KATTINOKKULA MURALI KRISHNA v. VEERAMALLA KOTESWARA RAO AND ORS. INSC 1751

Kattinokkula Murali Krishna vs Veeramalla Koteswara Rao & Ors Date: 23rd November, 2009 Facts: An election for the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Ravimetla Village was held on August 2nd, 2006. The appellant, Kattinokkula Murali Krishna, the first respondent and 2 other contested the election. In the initial counting, Krishna secured 552 votes while Veeramalla Koteswara Rao received 550 votes, however, 67 votes were declared invalid and a recount was requested by Rao. In the recount, 2 of the 67 invalid votes were declared valid and the final tally showed Krishna ahead by 2 votes and he was declared elected. Rao alleged widespread irregularities such as the mishandling of valid votes during counting, improper rejection of votes cast in his favour, and corruption and bias by election officials. He claimed that had these errors not occurred, he would have secured 606 votes and Krisha would’ve received 498 votes. Rao filed an election petition under Section 233 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, seeking a recount. The election tribunal allowed the recount based on Rao’s allegations. Krisha challenged this decision of recounting in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which upheld the Tribunal’s order so Krishna appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues: The issues framed by the election tribunal are as follows: “1. Whether the counting of votes by the 3rd respondent was not according to the rules and regulations? 2. Whether the votes polled in favour of the petitioner were rejected as invalid and whether the votes polled in favour of the petitioner were mixed in the votes polled in favour of the 5th respondent? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of recounting of votes including the rejected votes? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of declaration that the election of the 5th respondent is to be declared as void? 5. If so, whether the petitioner is entitled for declaration that he has been duly elected as Sarpanch of Ravimetla Grama Panchayat? 6. To what relief?” The issue of this case is: 1. Can a recount of votes be ordered based on general allegations of irregularity without specific evidence? 2. Did the High Court and Election Tribunal err in ordering a recount despite a lack of material facts and evidence in the petition?

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the order of recounting votes and ruled in favour of the appellant, Kattinokkula Murali Krishna, and he was entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 20,000/-.

Majority Decision Reasoning: Allowing a recount simply to “ensure transparency” undermines the principle that the secrecy of the ballot is sacrosanct and should not be violated except under compelling circumstances. Rao’s election petition contained vague and general allegations, he failed to specify the table where errors allegedly occurred, which votes were wrongly rejected or improperly mixed, and the exact manner in which irregularities influenced the result. The onus to prove irregularities lies on the election petitioner. The Election Tribunal wrongly shifted this burden onto election officials to justify their actions. Rao’s claims about errors in Form 26, the result form, were not supported by evidence hence there are no compelling circumstances to violate the sanctity of the secrecy of the ballot. A recount cannot merely be ordered because the margin of victory is narrow, and no harm would result from the recount. A recount is permissible only when material facts and evidence establish a strong prima facie case of irregularities or illegality. The Tribunal’s reasoning that Krishna would suffer "no prejudice" if a recount were conducted is irrelevant. Prejudice or lack thereof is not a factor in ordering recounts.

Impact of the case: The judgement clarified that vague, generalized allegations of irregularities ae insufficient to justify a recount. Specific, material facts and strong evidence are required to demonstrate that irregularities likely affected the election result. It also reinforced that the secrecy of the ballot if a cornerstone of democratic elections, breaching secrecy requires compelling justification instead of vague allegations not supported by evidence. The petitioner must provide evidence of irregularities at the outset rather than relying on hindsight from a recount’s outcome.