Supreme Court Stays Karnataka HC Order Setting Aside Election Of Congress MLA KY Nanjegowda
Partly staying a Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court today allowed Congress leader KY Nanjegowda to continue as a Member of Karnataka Legislative Assembly. The Court however maintained the direction for recounting of votes of Malur assembly constituency and called for the results in a sealed cover.
The result of recounting shall not be disclosed without prior permission of the Court, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi ordered.
"Issue notice. Meanwhile, operation of the impugned judgment of the High Court, to the extent it set aside election of appellant, shall remain stayed. Resultantly, the appellant shall continue to be an elected member of Karnataka State Legislative Assembly. However, ECI is directed to comply with directions to extent of recounting of votes and submit the result in a sealed cover before this Court. The recounting result shall not be declared without prior permission of this Court" the bench directed.
The Court was dealing with Nanjegowda's challenge to the Karnataka High Court order of September 16, which set aside his 2023 election from Malur constituency (Kolar district). During the said election, Nanjegowda won by a margin of 248 votes against BJP candidate KS Manjunath Gowda (respondent).
Vide the impugned order, the High Court allowed Manjunath Gowda's election petition and set aside Nanjegowda's election. It further directed the Election Commission of India to ensure recounting of votes and declare results afresh of Malur assembly constituency within 4 weeks.
In taking the view, the High Court was swayed by the fact that the video recording of the counting process was not made available for verification. "Since the recordings are not available, this Court should draw an adverse inference against the Returning Officer, that he did not pass any order [on the day of counting]", it noted. Aggrieved, Nanjegowda approached the Supreme Court.
Today, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Nanjegowda and submitted that the High Court framed 7 issues but did not decide any. He also contended that from the impugned order only it was found that a preliminary issue regarding unavailability of video recordings was framed by the High Court and adverse inference drawn against the Returning Officer, who was not a party.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for respondent-Manjunath Gowda on caveat and submitted that the case does not only involve an issue of video recording. Rather, the respondent has also challenged the appellant's election on the ground of Section 100(d)(iv) of the Representation of People Act. For context, the said provision allows a High Court to declare a successful candidate's election void if the result qua them has been materially affected by non-compliance of any provision of the Constitution/the RP Act/rules or orders made under the Act.
Issuing notice, the bench listed the matter on November 24.
Case Title: K.Y.NANJE GOWDA Versus K.S MANJUNATH GOWDA AND ORS., C.A. No. 12371/2025