The Supreme Court has underscored that election disputes cannot be reopened simply to plug evidentiary gaps, ruling that appellate courts must decide such matters strictly on the material already placed on record. ⚖️
The observation came while setting aside a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which had ordered fresh steps in a dispute involving allegations of double voting in a Sarpanch election. The High Court had directed examination of voters and fingerprint analysis of thumb impressions—measures that were never sought before the Election Tribunal during the original proceedings.
The dispute arose after the trial court invalidated the respondent’s election to the Sarpanch post, accepting allegations of double voting. The first appellate court affirmed this finding and directed a fresh election. However, the High Court intervened in writ proceedings and remanded the matter for reconsideration, calling for additional evidence such as witness testimony and expert analysis. 🗳️
The High Court reasoned that the earlier conclusions were based on incomplete steps and lacked necessary evidentiary backing. It felt that the case required examination of voters and expert scrutiny to arrive at a sound decision.
Challenging this, the appellant argued that the High Court had effectively allowed the respondent to repair weaknesses in their case—something not permissible in election disputes where parties must rely on the evidence they themselves produce.
Accepting this contention, the Supreme Court held that election petitions must be decided on the basis of the evidence led by the parties and available on record. It emphasized that appellate courts cannot remand such matters merely to facilitate fresh evidence or to summon witnesses when no such request had been made earlier. 📜
The Court observed that issuing directions to call additional witnesses or seek expert opinion in these circumstances amounted to allowing a party to fill lacunae in its case, which is impermissible in election proceedings. It further clarified that the appeal should have been decided on the existing material instead of issuing sweeping directions for further evidence.
Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order. The matter was restored to the High Court’s file with a direction to decide it afresh, strictly on the basis of the evidentiary record already available, without permitting additional evidence. 🔍
