SC stays Karnataka HC order setting aside election of Cong MLA, seeks EC's report on vote count

New Delhi, Oct 14 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the Karnataka High Court order that set aside Congress MLA KY Nanjegowda's election from Malur, while directing the Election Commission to conduct a recount of votes cast in his constituency in the 2023 assembly election and submit the result to it in a sealed cover.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which allowed Nanjegowda to continue as a member of the legislative assembly, however, maintained some of the directions of the September 16 judgement of the High Court that had come on an election petition by BJP’s KS Manjunath Gowda, who had lost to Nanjegowda in the election and had alleged irregularities in the counting process.

"Meanwhile, operation of the impugned judgment of the high court to the extent that it set aside the election of the appellant shall remain stayed. Resultantly, the appellant shall continue to be an elected member of the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly," the bench ordered.

The top court, however, directed the Election Commission to comply with the high court's direction to the extent of recounting of votes and asked it not to declare the result without the apex court's permission.

"However, the Election Commission of India is directed to comply with the directions to the extent of recounting the votes and is directed to submit the result in a sealed cover before this court.

"It is made clear that the result after recounting of votes shall not be declared without prior permission of this court," the bench said.

The top court issued notice on the petition challenging the high court order on a plea by BJP’s KS Manjunath Gowda, who had lost to Nanjegowda in the 2023 assembly elections in the state.

In the polls, Nanjegowda won by a margin of just 248 votes against the BJP candidate KS Manjunath Gowda.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Nanjegowda, submitted that the high court erred in its finding after framing seven issues but did not decide any.

He also contended that from the impugned order only, it was found that a preliminary issue regarding the unavailability of video recordings was framed by the high court and the adverse inference drawn against the returning officer, who was not even a party to the litigation.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Manjunath Gowda on a caveat, submitted that the case does not only involve any issue of video recording but "irregularities" in the counting process.

The bench sought Manjunath Gowda's response by November 24. PTI MNL MNL RT RT