INTRODUCTION
In Rakam Singh v. Amit & Ors., SLP (C) No. 25100 of 2025, decided on 20 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, held that courts cannot permit parties to fill evidentiary gaps in election petitions by ordering fresh evidence at the appellate stage.
The Court set aside the High Court’s Order remanding the matter for recording additional evidence, reiterating that election disputes must be decided on the basis of evidence already led by the parties.
BRIEF FACTS
The dispute arose from elections to the post of Sarpanch in a village in Haryana, where both the Appellant and Respondent secured an equal number of votes. The result was decided by draw of lots, declaring the Respondent as elected.
The Appellant challenged the Election by filing an Election Petition alleging corrupt practices, including double voting. The Election Tribunal partly allowed the Petition, finding that four votes had been cast twice and consequently set aside the Election and directed fresh polls. This finding was affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
However, the High Court, in writ jurisdiction, set aside these concurrent findings and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with directions to record additional evidence, including examination of voters and obtaining expert opinion on thumb impressions.
ISSUES OF LAW
The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in remanding an election petition for fresh evidence, particularly when such evidence had not been sought or led by the parties during the original proceedings.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the collection of fresh evidence at the remand stage. It emphasised that election petitions are to be decided strictly on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and courts cannot introduce new evidentiary exercises to cure deficiencies in a party’s case.
The Court noted that neither party had sought expert evidence or examination of voters in the manner directed by the High Court. By issuing such directions, the High Court effectively allowed the parties to fill gaps in their case, which is impermissible in election law. Election disputes, being statutory in nature, require strict adherence to procedural discipline and any attempt to supplement evidence at a later stage would undermine finality and fairness.
The Court further observed that the High Court, instead of remanding the matter, ought to have decided the Writ Petition on the basis of the material already available on record. The directions to call witnesses and obtain expert reports were characterised as “sweeping” and beyond the permissible scope of judicial review in such matters.
Importantly, the Court reiterated the principle that there is no scope for filling gaps in election proceedings and that courts must resist the temptation to reopen evidence merely because the existing record is inadequate.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s Remand Order and restored the Writ Petition for fresh consideration on merits based solely on the existing record.
This Judgment reinforces a critical principle of election law that litigation must stand or fall on the evidence presented by the parties and courts cannot permit a second opportunity to improve a deficient case. By curbing the practice of reopening evidence at later stages, the Court has upheld the integrity, finality and discipline of election adjudication.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Can AI replace an advocate’s job? || Artificial Intelligence in Legal Profession” can be viewed at the link below: