The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a plea arising out of the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) elections, observing that disputes relating to vote counting are ordinarily required to be raised through the statutory election petition mechanism after completion of the election process.
The petitioner contended that two invalid votes had been wrongly counted in favour of another candidate, resulting in her elimination at an earlier stage of the counting process. It was argued that the grievance was not directed against the election of any successful candidate but against the improper counting of votes.
“
Counsel: “My grievance is that two invalid votes have been counted in favour of another candidate and that is why this has led to my elimination.”
The Bench observed that election law contemplates challenges after the declaration of results and that courts cannot halt or repeatedly revisit the counting process each time an objection is raised.
“
Bench: “If at every stage an objection is raised with regard to counting or rejection of a particular vote, the counting process will never conclude. The law of elections requires these issues to culminate in a final result, which may then be challenged.”
When counsel argued that the statutory election petition lay only against an elected candidate and not against erroneous vote counting, the Bench clarified that the petitioner’s remedy would arise after the conclusion of the counting process.
“
Bench: “You are not rendered remediless. Your remedy has been postponed to an appropriate stage. Wait for the conclusion of counting and then avail your remedy.”
Following the Court’s observations, the petitioner withdrew the special leave petition with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law.