The Supreme Court has upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision setting aside the recounting of votes in a Uttar Pradesh Gram Pradhan election dispute, holding that once an Election Tribunal or Prescribed Authority passes a final order in an election petition, it becomes “functus officio” and cannot continue exercising jurisdiction by issuing further consequential orders.
The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale has observed that once the authority became functus officio, it could not subsequently accept the recount report and declare Urmila Devi elected. The Bench emphasized that the power to set aside election results vests exclusively with the Prescribed Authority, and after jurisdiction ceases, no further declaration could legally be made.
The dispute arose from the 2021 Gram Panchayat Pradhan election of Parauli Suhagpur village in Etah district of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant, Urmila Devi, had contested the election along with respondent Manoj Devi and other candidates. After counting concluded over nearly two days, Manoj Devi was declared elected by a margin of merely two votes.
Challenging the election result, Urmila Devi filed an election petition under Section 12C of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), alleging serious irregularities in the counting process. The allegations included discrepancies in ballot counts, wrongful rejection of valid ballot papers, improper supervision during counting and violation of Rules 104, 105 and 106 of the U.P. Panchayat Election Rules, 1994.
The SDO examined the election records and found discrepancies in Election Forms 45 and 46 regarding valid votes polled by candidates. Considering the narrow margin of victory and the discrepancies noticed, the authority ordered recounting on 5 November 2022.
Subsequently, Manoj Devi approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the recount order. During the pendency of proceedings, the recounting was conducted on 17 March 2023 and Urmila Devi was declared elected by a margin of 12 votes. She was later administered oath as Gram Pradhan.
However, the Allahabad High Court later set aside both the recount order and the consequential declaration of result. The High Court held that the SDO’s order dated 5 November 2022 was a final order because it had already allowed the election petition. Therefore, after passing that order, the authority became functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to pass any further order based on recounting.
Before the Supreme Court, Urmila Devi argued that the High Court had ignored material discrepancies in the vote count and that recounting was justified because the original victory margin was only two votes. It was further contended that recounting ultimately demonstrated that the election result had been materially affected by irregularities.
On the other hand, the respondent contended that recounting could not be ordered on vague allegations and that the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to continue proceedings after finally deciding the election petition. Reliance was placed on earlier precedents holding that election tribunals become functus officio after passing final orders.
The Supreme Court examined Section 12C of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act and observed that the Prescribed Authority alone has jurisdiction to decide election disputes and set aside election results. Once final relief is granted, the authority ceases to retain jurisdiction over the matter.
The Court relied upon its earlier ruling in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and also referred to the Allahabad High Court judgment in Parshuram v. State of U.P., which held that once an election petition is finally decided, the authority cannot continue proceedings or issue further directions.
Distinguishing a recent Supreme Court judgment in Raj Kumari v. Asha Devi, where a recount order was treated as merely interim in nature, the Court held that the order passed in the present case was materially different because the election petition itself had already been finally allowed. Therefore, the SDO’s jurisdiction ended on 5 November 2022 itself.
The Court observed that once the authority became functus officio, it could not subsequently accept the recount report and declare Urmila Devi elected. The Bench emphasized that the power to set aside election results vests exclusively with the Prescribed Authority, and after jurisdiction ceases, no further declaration could legally be made.
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the Allahabad High Court’s ruling and reiterated the High Court’s caution that Sub-Divisional Magistrates and Prescribed Authorities must act carefully while dealing with election petitions and recount proceedings.
Case Details
Case Title: Urmila Devi Versus The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: JURISHOUR-1203-SC-2026
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.7427 OF 2026
Date: 11/05/2026
