The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by Urmila Devi in a dispute arising out of the 2021 Gram Pradhan election in Etah district of Uttar Pradesh, holding that the Prescribed Authority lost jurisdiction after passing a final order directing recounting of votes.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale ruled that once the election petition had been finally decided, the authority became “functus officio” and could not pass any further order declaring a candidate elected after recounting.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from the 2021 Panchayat election for the post of Gram Pradhan of Parauli Sughapur village in Etah district, Uttar Pradesh. Urmila Devi lost the election to Manoj Devi by a margin of just two votes.
Challenging the result, Urmila Devi filed an election petition alleging serious irregularities during counting. She claimed there were discrepancies in ballot records, improper rejection of valid votes, and violations of election rules that materially affected the outcome.
The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), acting as the Prescribed Authority, examined the election records and found discrepancies in Forms 45 and 46 relating to vote counts. Considering the narrow margin of victory, the SDO ordered recounting on November 5, 2022.
Following the recount conducted in March 2023, Urmila Devi was declared elected by a margin of 12 votes and was later administered oath as Pradhan.
Manoj Devi challenged the recount order before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside both the recount order and the subsequent declaration of Urmila Devi as the returned candidate.
The High Court held that the SDO had already passed a final order while allowing the election petition and directing recount simultaneously. Therefore, the authority became functus officio - meaning it no longer retained jurisdiction to continue proceedings or declare a fresh result after recounting.
Before the Supreme Court, Urmila Devi argued that the recount was justified because of the narrow two-vote margin and material discrepancies in counting records. It was also contended that the recount ultimately changed the result, showing that irregularities had affected the election outcome.
However, the Bench agreed with the reasoning adopted by the High Court.
The Court observed,
“Once the Prescribed Authority passes an order granting final relief, it ceases to have jurisdiction to pass any further order in relation to the election.”
Referring to earlier precedents, the Bench explained that if an election petition is finally decided, the authority cannot later continue proceedings or alter the result after recounting.
The Court distinguished an earlier Supreme Court ruling in Raj Kumari v. Asha Devi, where a recount order had been treated as an interim order. In the present case, the Bench found that the SDO’s order dated November 5, 2022 had completely allowed the election petition and therefore amounted to a final order.
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision and ruled that the Prescribed Authority could not have declared Urmila Devi elected after becoming functus officio.
The Bench also reiterated the High Court’s caution that the Prescribed Authority “remain cautious in future while dealing with election petitions.”
Case Details:
Case Title: Urmila Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7427 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 9638 of 2023)
Judges: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Decision Date: May 11, 2026
