Pranesh M.K. v. A.V. Gayathri Shanthegowda & Ors. Etc. Etc.
Background
In the 2021 election to the Karnataka Legislative Council from the Chikkamagaluru Local Authorities Constituency, 12 councillors nominated (not elected) by the State Government under the Karnataka Municipalities Act were included in the electoral rolls and allowed to vote. Pranesh M.K. won the election by a narrow margin of just 6 votes, with the nominated members' votes included in his tally. In separate proceedings, the Karnataka High Court had already held that including nominated members in the electoral roll was unconstitutional, since they had no right to vote in Legislative Council elections. Building on that finding, the High Court then, in election petitions challenging Pranesh's victory, ordered the ballot boxes reopened, the nominated members' 12 votes segregated and excluded, and the results recounted. Pranesh appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the electoral rolls had attained finality and that individual votes could not be identified without breaching ballot secrecy.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that this case was different from ordinary disputes about irregularities in electoral rolls, because the nominated members' inclusion was not a mere clerical mistake but a constitutional violation going to the very composition of the electorate: such a fundamental defect could not be shielded by the principle that electoral rolls, once final, are not to be reopened. Since the unconstitutionality of including nominated members had already been conclusively declared in the earlier, unstayed High Court judgment concerning the very same constituency and roll, the High Court was justified in relying on that finding when deciding the election petitions. Under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, an election can be voided if the result was materially affected by reception of void votes, and here, with 12 invalid votes against a winning margin of only 6, that threshold was clearly met. The Court also rejected the argument that segregating these votes would breach ballot secrecy, noting the Returning Officer himself testified that the nominated members' ballots could be identified and segregated by comparing ballot papers, counterfoils, and marked electoral roll copies, and that ballot secrecy, while important, cannot be used to protect a constitutional illegality. The appeals were dismissed, with the recount and revised result to be forwarded to the High Court for further action.
Lesson Learnt
Finality of electoral rolls and secrecy of the ballot are both important safeguards of the electoral process, but neither can be used as a shield to preserve votes cast by persons who were constitutionally ineligible to vote in the first place. Once such votes are shown to have materially affected the result, courts can and will order them excluded even after counting is complete.