She asked for a recount and won. The Supreme Court still threw out her case.

One village, two winners, and a petition that asked for the wrong thing

When the votes were counted for the Sarpanch election in Semarkona, Chhattisgarh, on 28 January 2020, Babli Sahu was declared the winner. The losing candidate, Dharmin Bai Kashyap, didn't believe it. She claimed the counting at three booths had been done in poor light, hurriedly. So she did what any aggrieved candidate would do: she filed an election petition before the Sub Divisional Officer in Mungeli.

She asked for one thing only — a recount of votes at those three booths.

She got it. The SDO ordered a recount. After the recount, Dharmin Bai was declared elected. Babli Sahu was out.

That should have been the end. But it wasn't. Because what Dharmin Bai's petition didn't ask for — and what the law required her to ask for — was a declaration that Babli Sahu's election was void, or a declaration that she herself had been duly elected. Without those declarations, the Supreme Court held, the election petition was dead on arrival.

The stakes were simple: a village Sarpanch's seat, two years of litigation, and a principle that could unseat any elected panchayat official in Chhattisgarh if the losing candidate's lawyer drafts the petition carelessly.

The petition that only asked for a recount

The election was held on 28 January 2020. The result was declared two days later. Babli Sahu won. Dharmin Bai Kashyap filed an election petition under Section 122 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Her complaint: at polling stations 2, 3, and 4, the counting was done in insufficient light, and the result was therefore unreliable. She asked the SDO to order a recount of votes from those three booths.

That was it. No prayer that Babli Sahu's election be declared void. No prayer that she herself be declared elected.

The SDO allowed the petition on 18 October 2021 and directed a recount. Babli Sahu challenged that order before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The Single Bench set aside the SDO's order on 8 November 2021, holding that the SDO had not followed the procedure under Rule 11 of the 1995 Rules. The matter went back to the SDO.

This time, the SDO recorded evidence. On 20 December 2021, he found that the lighting at the three booths was indeed insufficient, and ordered a recount on 31 December 2021. After the recount, Dharmin Bai Kashyap was declared elected.

Babli Sahu went back to the High Court. The Single Bench dismissed her challenge on 6 January 2022, upholding the recount order.

But Babli Sahu didn't stop. She appealed to the Division Bench. And there, the game changed.

What the Division Bench saw that the Single Bench missed

The Division Bench looked at the election petition itself. It noticed something fundamental: Dharmin Bai Kashyap had not asked for the declarations required by Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995.

Rule 6 is clear. It says a petitioner may claim:

"(a) a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void; and (b) in addition, thereto, a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected."

Dharmin Bai's petition had neither. She had only asked for a recount. The Division Bench held that the petition was not maintainable. It set aside the SDO's recounting order and the recount result. Babli Sahu was restored as Sarpanch.

Dharmin Bai appealed to the Supreme Court.

The arguments: "But Sohan Lal says recounting is allowed"

Dharmin Bai's counsel relied heavily on Sohan Lal v. Babu Gandhi and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 108. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that there is no prohibition in the Act or Rules preventing a court or tribunal from directing a recount of votes in an election petition after the declaration of the result. The argument was simple: if recounting can be ordered in an election petition, then a petition that asks only for recounting must be maintainable.

The Court did not disagree with the ratio of Sohan Lal. But it drew a crucial distinction. In Sohan Lal, the petitioner had sought the declaration that the election was void. The recount was an ancillary relief. Here, Dharmin Bai had sought recounting as the sole relief — without any declaration under Rule 6.

The Court also referred to Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2015) 13 SCC 722, which laid down the principle that where a statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and no other. And Laxmi Singh and Others v. Rekha Singh and Others, (2020) 6 SCC 812, which held that election law provisions must be strictly construed.

Babli Sahu's counsel argued that the election petition was a statutory proceeding, not a suit in equity. The reliefs available are those specifically provided by the statute. If the statute says you must ask for a declaration, you must ask for it. No shortcuts.

The Supreme Court's answer: strict compliance, no exceptions

Justice Bela M. Trivedi, writing for the Bench (also comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti), delivered the judgment on 16 August 2023. The appeal was dismissed.

The Court held that an election petition under Section 122 of the Adhiniyam is a purely statutory proceeding. It is not an action at law or a suit in equity. The reliefs that can be claimed are those specifically enumerated in Rule 6 of the 1995 Rules. A petition that seeks only a recount without claiming either declaration under Rule 6 is not maintainable.

The Court distinguished Sohan Lal on the ground that even though recounting can be directed in an election petition, the recount relief must be sought as ancillary to the main reliefs under Rule 6 — not as the sole relief.

The Court also noted that the election petition had been filed after the result was declared. At that stage, the only remedy available to an aggrieved candidate is to file an election petition under Section 122. But that petition must comply with the statutory requirements. If it doesn't, it fails.

THE PLAY: When drafting an election petition under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, always include the two declarations under Rule 6 — that the returned candidate's election is void, and that the petitioner is duly elected — even if the only factual dispute is about recounting. The recount is ancillary; the declarations are mandatory.

The witness rule the Supreme Court applied

This judgment is not about recounting. It is about the nature of election law itself. Election contests are creatures of statute. The statute creates the right, defines the remedy, and prescribes the procedure. A court cannot add to or subtract from that procedure.

The principle from Cherukuri Mani was applied with full force: "Where law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in that manner without deviating from the prescribed procedure."

This is not a technicality. It is a rule of law. If the legislature has said that an election petition must seek certain declarations, then a petition that doesn't seek them is not an election petition at all. It is a nullity.

The Court also clarified the scope of Sohan Lal. That case did not hold that a recount can be ordered without the proper declarations. It held that there is no bar to ordering a recount in an election petition — provided the petition itself is properly constituted. The recount is a procedural step within the main relief, not a standalone remedy.

Why this matters in practice

For advocates who practice in panchayat election disputes in Chhattisgarh, this judgment is a mandatory checklist item. Before filing an election petition under Section 122, verify that the prayer clause contains:

• A declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void (Rule 6(a)); and
• A further declaration that the petitioner or another candidate has been duly elected (Rule 6(b)).

If the petition only asks for a recount, it will be dismissed. The recount can be sought as an interim or ancillary relief, but the main declarations must be there.

For CFOs and founders who may be involved in panchayat-level disputes — perhaps through a corporate social responsibility initiative or a local partnership — this judgment is a reminder that statutory compliance is not optional. A procedural mistake at the petition stage can undo years of litigation and cost you the seat.

For the losing candidate who thought she had won after the recount, the lesson is harsh: the law does not reward a petition that asks for the wrong thing, even if the facts are on your side.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Division Bench order stands. Babli Sahu remains the Sarpanch of Semarkona. Dharmin Bai Kashyap's recount victory is erased.

The bottom line: If your election petition doesn't ask for the declarations under Rule 6, it doesn't matter how strong your evidence is. The petition is not maintainable. Draft the prayer clause first, then build the facts around it.