‘Won’t accept lame excuses’: SC takes EC to task over missing 2023 counting video

An adverse inference is a legal conclusion that missing evidence might have supported the opposing side. Courts may draw it when a party responsible for keeping important material cannot produce it without a convincing explanation. It does not automatically decide the case, but it can damage that party’s credibility.

The Supreme Court gave the warning after the Election Commission said it could not trace the original video recording of the 2023 count in Sringeri. Rajegowda had requested the footage and the election observer’s report while challenging a later recount. The bench said the ECI should have election records in its custody and told it to produce whatever remained.

The court said it would draw an adverse inference if the records were not produced by the next hearing. It called the explanation unacceptable and rejected what it described as “lame excuses.” The matter is listed for February 15, 2027, when the available records may become important to testing the recount’s legality.

The Supreme Court asked the Election Commission to produce the election observer’s report and video recordings connected with the Sringeri dispute. The requested footage covered the original vote count held during the 2023 Karnataka assembly election and the recount conducted in May this year. These records could show how postal ballots were handled and whether officials followed the required process.

The request arose from Rajegowda’s challenge to the recount that reversed his victory. When the court proposed directing the ECI to provide the material, the commission’s lawyer said the original counting video could not be traced. The bench rejected that explanation and ordered the poll body to produce whatever records were available.

The records matter because the Supreme Court is examining whether the recount was legally conducted. In May, it had already directed the ECI to produce relevant records about the recount and kept consequential steps taken by the returning officer in abeyance. The case is next listed for February 15, 2027.

The original result was extremely close. Congress leader TD Rajegowda defeated BJP candidate DN Jeevaraj by 201 votes in the 2023 Karnataka assembly election from Sringeri. That narrow margin later became the focus of a legal challenge involving postal ballots and the authority of officials to revisit counted votes.

The recount changed the result sharply. It invalidated 255 votes that had previously been counted for Rajegowda. It also added two votes to Jeevaraj’s tally. Together, those changes erased Rajegowda’s lead and shifted the contest to Jeevaraj, who emerged with a revised winning margin of 52 votes.

Jeevaraj was subsequently declared elected, but the Supreme Court put the consequential steps taken by the returning officer on hold while it examines the recount. Rajegowda remains the MLA during that examination. The court is also considering whether the returning officer exceeded the high court’s instructions by revisiting ballots already accepted as valid.

Postal ballots allow eligible voters to vote without personally attending the polling station, using the postal voting process. They are checked and counted under election rules. Because each ballot can affect a close contest, decisions about rejection, verification, and recounting can directly change the result.

In Sringeri, the Karnataka high court ordered a recount that included re-verification of 279 postal ballots rejected during the original count. The returning officer did more than that, according to the Supreme Court’s May 11 order. The officer also re-examined 1,251 postal ballots that had already been declared valid. The recount ultimately invalidated 255 votes previously counted for Rajegowda.

That difference is central to the case. Rajegowda argues that the returning officer exceeded the high court’s directions by reopening accepted ballots. The Supreme Court said the exercise appeared, prima facie, to lack a legal foundation and paused its consequences. It is now examining whether the recount lawfully changed the election result.

The Karnataka high court’s April 6, 2026 order directed a recount of postal ballots, including re-verification of 279 ballots rejected during the original count. The Supreme Court’s concern is that the returning officer may have treated that direction as permission to reopen a much wider group of ballots.

The Supreme Court recorded that the officer re-verified the 279 rejected ballots and also re-examined 1,251 postal ballots previously declared valid. That second step went beyond the ballots specifically identified for re-verification. The expanded review changed the count: 255 votes earlier credited to Rajegowda were invalidated, while two were added to Jeevaraj.

In its May 11 order, the Supreme Court said the exercise appeared to have gone beyond the high court’s directions. It also said the resulting steps appeared, prima facie, to be without legal foundation. The court kept those consequences in abeyance while it examines the records, the recount process, and Rajegowda’s challenge.

The Supreme Court has not allowed the recount’s consequences to operate fully while it studies whether the exercise was lawful. In May, it directed that all consequential steps taken by the returning officer remain in abeyance. This preserves the position for the time being and prevents the disputed recount from conclusively settling the seat.

The recount had reversed the original result. It invalidated 255 votes counted for Rajegowda and added two votes to Jeevaraj, giving the BJP candidate a 52-vote margin. Jeevaraj was subsequently declared elected. However, the Supreme Court’s intervention allowed Rajegowda to continue as the MLA while the court examines the challenge.

The court will consider whether the returning officer exceeded the Karnataka high court’s directions and whether the high court was justified in ordering the recount. It has also sought the relevant records, including available counting footage. The matter is posted for February 15, 2027, so the disputed result remains under judicial examination.

These institutions have different roles. Election observers monitor the process and prepare reports. The returning officer manages the constituency count and applies counting rules. The Election Commission administers elections and is expected to preserve relevant records. In this dispute, the missing video and observer’s report became important evidence.

A high court hears an election petition and can order a recount when the legal requirements are met. The Supreme Court can review the high court’s directions and examine whether officials stayed within them. Here, the Karnataka high court ordered a postal-ballot recount, while the Supreme Court questioned the returning officer’s broader re-examination of accepted ballots.

The Supreme Court is not conducting the ordinary count itself. It is assessing the legality of the recount and the steps that followed it. It has ordered records, kept consequences in abeyance, and allowed Rajegowda to continue as MLA for now. The ECI must produce whatever relevant material it can find.