The Supreme Court of India pulled up the Election Commission of India over its inability to trace the 2023 Sringeri vote-counting video, directing it to produce whatever records are available by the next hearing and warning that it could draw an adverse inference against the poll body.
The Supreme Court directed the poll body to produce all available records and video footage by the next hearing. (File Photo: ITG)
New Delhi,Oct 15, 2026 02:03 IST
The Supreme Court on Wednesday took a stern view of the Election Commission of India's (ECI) inability to trace a video recording of the 2023 vote counting in Karnataka's Sringeri Assembly constituency, warning that it could draw an adverse inference against the poll body if it failed to produce the available records at the next hearing.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva expressed surprise at the Election Commission's submission that it could not locate the footage, questioning how the poll body could lose records relating to an election it was responsible for conducting.
"How can the Election Commission of India (ECI) say that it has lost its record? Your whole purpose is to hold an election, and you need to have a document," the bench said, as reported by Bar and Bench.
The court rejected the ECI's explanation that efforts were being made to trace the recording and directed it to produce whatever records it had on the next date of hearing. The matter has been posted for February 15, 2027.
SUPREME COURT WARNS OF ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST ECI
The court's observations came during the hearing of a dispute over the Sringeri Assembly seat, where Congress leader TD Rajegowda was initially declared the winner in the 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections by a margin of just 201 votes.
BJP candidate DN Jeevaraj subsequently challenged Rajegowda's election victory, triggering legal proceedings that eventually led to a recount of postal ballots and a change in the declared result.
During Wednesday's hearing, the bench was told that Rajegowda wanted access to the election observer's report and video recordings of both the original counting exercise in 2023 and the subsequent recount.
When the court indicated that the ECI should produce the relevant documents and recordings, senior advocate Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the poll body, said the video of the original counting could not be traced.
The explanation did not satisfy the bench, which questioned the Commission's responsibility for preserving election records.
"Where is the question of you saying, ‘Yeah, we are trying to trace it’? You gave it to the elected candidate. There is no custody of records," the court said, according to Bar and Bench.
The bench reiterated that the Commission must place whatever material was available before it at the next hearing, warning that failure to do so could have consequences.
"Whatever you have, produce it on the next date. Otherwise, we will have to draw an adverse inference against you. We will not accept these kinds of lame excuses," the court said, as reported by Bar and Bench.
HOW A RECOUNT CHANGED THE RESULT IN SRINGERI
The dispute stems from Jeevaraj's election petition before the Karnataka High Court, challenging Rajegowda's victory in the 2023 Assembly election.
On April 6, the High Court ordered a recount of postal ballot votes, including the re-verification of 279 postal ballots that had initially been rejected.
Following the exercise, the returning officer formally declared a revised result on May 3, 2026. Rajegowda's vote tally was reportedly reduced by 255 votes, and Jeevaraj was declared the winner.
Rajegowda subsequently approached the Supreme Court, challenging the revised result and the process adopted during the recount.
CONGRESS MLA ALLEGES RECOUNT WENT BEYOND COURT'S ORDER
In his plea before the Supreme Court, Rajegowda argued that the High Court had ordered only the re-verification of 279 rejected postal ballots. He alleged that the returning officer went beyond that direction by reconsidering 562 postal ballots that had already been accepted as valid and were in his favour.
He has also challenged the High Court's judgment ordering the recount, questioning why the exercise was necessary when the court had recorded findings favourable to him on corruption allegations raised by Jeevaraj.
The demand for the original counting footage and the observer's report is part of Rajegowda's effort to challenge the process that led to his removal from the seat.
In May, the Supreme Court granted him interim relief, directing that he would continue as an MLA while his plea remained pending.
- Ends