Supreme Court.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 14, took a stern view of the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) inability to trace the video recording of the 2023 vote-counting exercise in Karnataka’s Sringeri Assembly constituency. The court directed the poll body to produce the available records at the next hearing and warned that it could draw an adverse inference if the material was not furnished.
The case concerns the electoral contest between Congress leader T.D. Rajegowda and BJP candidate D.N. Jeevaraj. Rajegowda had won the 2023 Assembly election by 201 votes, but a subsequent recount resulted in Jeevaraj being declared the winner.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing Rajegowda’s challenge to the revised result when the ECI’s counsel, senior advocate Seshadri Naidu, said the video footage of the original counting could not be located.
The response drew a sharp reaction from the judges, who questioned how the national election authority could claim that it had lost track of records connected with an election. The bench emphasised that maintaining election-related documentation was central to the commission’s responsibilities and rejected the explanation as inadequate.
The court said the ECI must place before it whatever documents and recordings were available. It made clear that merely stating that officials were attempting to trace the footage would not be sufficient. The matter was adjourned to February 15, 2027.
Rajegowda has sought the election observer’s report and recordings of the original counting as well as the recount. His petition challenges the manner in which the revised result was arrived at.
Jeevaraj had moved the Karnataka High Court challenging Rajegowda’s election victory. On April 6, 2026, the High Court directed officials to recount postal ballots and re-verify 279 ballots that had earlier been rejected.
After the recount, the returning officer issued a revised declaration on May 3, 2026, reducing Rajegowda’s tally by 255 votes and declaring Jeevaraj elected.
Rajegowda argued before the Supreme Court that the returning officer had exceeded the scope of the High Court’s order. He maintained that the direction was limited to examining 279 rejected postal ballots, but officials had also reconsidered 562 valid postal ballots that had been counted in his favour.
He also questioned the legal basis for the recount, contending that the High Court had made findings favourable to him regarding corruption allegations raised by Jeevaraj.
The Supreme Court had granted Rajegowda interim relief in May 2026, permitting him to continue as MLA while his plea was pending. Separately, Jeevaraj is facing a criminal case concerning alleged postal ballot tampering, in which the Karnataka High Court stayed proceedings in May 2026. The Supreme Court’s latest observations concern the availability of election records and do not, by themselves, determine the merits of the election dispute.
This post was last modified on October 14, 2026 9:55 pm