NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the Karnataka High Court's order which declared the election of K Y Nanjegowda, the Congress MLA from Malur constituency in Kolar district as void due to alleged irregularities.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, however, upheld in an interim order the High Court's direction to the Election Commission to hold recounting of the votes polled in the 2023 Assembly elections.
The apex court directed the poll panel to furnish the result in a sealed envelope before this court.
Senior advocate A M Singhvi on behalf of Nanjegowda assailed the High Court's order passed in an election petition.
He contended the High Court framed seven issues in the election petition but did not decide a single one.
The court issued notice to the BJP candidate on the plea against the High Court's order passed in September.
"Meanwhile, the operation of the impugned order of the High Court, to the extent it set aside the election of the appellant, shall remain stayed," the bench said in its order.
Resultantly, the court ordered, the appellant would continue as the elected Member of the Legislative Assembly.
"However, the Election Commission of India is directed to comply with the directions to the extent of recounting of votes and submit the result in a sealed cover before this court. The recounting results shall not be disclosed without the permission of this court," the bench said.
K S Manjunath Gowda of the Bharatiya Janata Party, challenging the election, on the alleged irregularities in the Karnataka Assembly election. He lost to Nanjegowda by a narrow margin of 248 votes in the 2023 elections.
He filed the petition for declaring Nanjegowda’s election as void. He also sought recount of votes, and declaring him as the elected candidate.
Gowda alleged votes were improperly accepted in favour of Nanjegowda and votes favouring him were rejected. The video recordings, which could have verified this, were withheld. The counsel also alleged that the returning officer had not passed any order on the petitioner’s recount application.
The High Court allowed his plea, observing the absence of records from the presiding officer made the election’s outcome questionable.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
