A one-vote win has turned into a four-year election battle in Madhya Pradesh, after the high court backed a recount in a sarpanch election where the winner edged out the rival by just one vote, even as 84 ballots were rejected. The court said the “razor-thin margin”, coupled with allegations and evidence concerning counting irregularities, justified physically verifying the votes.Justice Sandeep N Bhatt was hearing a petition filed by Sanjay Maliwal, who was declared elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sodpur in Dhar district after the July 2022 election. Rival candidate Kavita Thakur had challenged the election and sought recounting. Maliwal challenged the September 18, 2025 order directing the recount and a September 23, 2025 letter fixing the date for the exercise.“When the election dispute is involving a razor-thin margin of one single vote coupled with the fact that 84 ballots rejected, in that circumstances, an inspection and physical recount is the only reliable and legally recognised mechanism available to determine, whether the proven allegations of improper rejection/acceptance are mathematically true,” the court said on September 17, adding that the authority had not committed an error in granting the recount and that its action did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.The election was held at three polling booths in Sodpur Gram Panchayat. Maliwal was declared elected on July 14, 2022. Thakur subsequently challenged the result, setting off several rounds of litigation before the recount was eventually conducted during the high court proceedings. Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt noted that the recount had already been completed and its result was placed before the court in a sealed cover. (Image enhanced using AI)One vote, 84 rejected ballotsThe numbers were central to the dispute as the candidates had secured 758 and 757 votes, leaving a one-vote margin, while 84 ballots had been rejected. Maliwal opposed the recount, arguing that a narrow margin alone could not justify reopening the counting. His counsel submitted that Thakur had to specifically plead and prima facie establish material irregularities before such an exceptional remedy could be granted.He also argued that recounting could not be ordered merely to remove suspicion or conduct a “roving/fishing inquiry”. The secrecy of the ballot, he submitted, required the candidate challenging the result to substantiate the alleged irregularities.Thakur’s lawyers disputed this, arguing that material irregularities had been established through evidence. They also relied on Maliwal’s cross-examination, in which he admitted that he was stationed outside the polling station during counting and did not have personal knowledge of the internal proceedings.Story continues below this adThakur first approached the high court on July 28, 2022, seeking a recount, but her petition was dismissed on August 16, 2022 with liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy. She then filed an election petition before the competent authority.The authority ordered a vote recount on April 17, 2023. Maliwal challenged it, and the high court set aside the order on September 21, 2023, remanding the matter for a fresh decision after hearing him.After several opportunities to produce witnesses, Maliwal’s right to lead evidence was closed on July 26, 2024. He challenged this too.On February 11, 2025, the high court again remanded the matter with strict, time-bound directions to complete the evidence. The authority then ordered a recount on September 18, 2025. Maliwal challenged the order and the letter fixing the recount before the high court.Recount completed under court’s watchDuring the proceedings, the high court permitted the recount but directed that its result should not be declared and instead be kept in a sealed cover. The recount was completed and the result, along with relevant records, was produced before the court. Maliwal argued that the recount order effectively granted the final relief sought in the election petition. However, the high court rejected this contention.Story continues below this adThe courts said that the election authority had recorded findings on the issues in the election petition and, after finding irregularities in the counting process, directed recounting so that the actual result could be determined according to law. The recount direction was therefore consequential to those findings, the court said. It also noted that the challenged order did not itself finally declare the election result.Considering the legal principles governing recounts, the court said physical recounting was the reliable mechanism to determine whether allegations concerning improper rejection or acceptance of ballots were borne out. The court also noted that Maliwal had completed more than four years of his tenure during the prolonged proceedings and that the recount had already been completed.