The petitioners approached the Patna High Court challenging an order of the District Magistrate (East Champaran) that treated all votes polled in a Panchayat Samiti no-confidence meeting as valid. The core grievance was that the District Magistrate’s subsequent order, passed after a High Court remand, allegedly failed to give a detailed ballot-wise analysis and improperly declared every vote as “correct,” despite earlier objections that some ballots bore a “+” mark instead of the prescribed “x”. The Court, presided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar, dismissed the writ petition on 19 December 2024, after noting that the ballots had twice been examined in the presence of all members and that each ballot contained the required “x” mark.

The dispute arose from a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti held on 18 January 2024 where a no-confidence motion against the petitioner-Pramukh was carried by a margin of 5–4. The proceeding recorded the vote split contemporaneously. When the voting pattern was questioned on the ground that one or more members had marked their ballots with a “+” sign (not an “x”), the matter eventually reached the High Court. In an earlier round, the Court had permitted limited administrative verification by the District Magistrate “for satisfaction” of the aggrieved person. That initial order led to a District Magistrate decision which, however, revealed voter identities and lacked a ballot-by-ballot description. The High Court therefore remanded the matter again with specific directions to describe each ballot and the marks thereon while ensuring voter anonymity.

On remand, the District Magistrate convened all Panchayat Samiti members, opened the sealed ballot box, and re-examined every ballot in their presence. The process was videographed. This time, the District Magistrate recorded that all ballots contained the prescribed cross “x” mark and treated them as valid. The State pointed out that there were no allegations of malpractice by any candidate or by the Presiding Officer during the polling; nor did any member admit to using a “+” sign. The petitioners pressed that under the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006—specifically Rules 95 and 96—the prescribed mark is a secret “x” against the chosen candidate, and that the presence of any other mark (especially a “+”) would make a ballot invalid. They contended the remand order required detailed ballot-wise reasoning which was still not satisfied.

Rule 95 of the 2006 Rules prescribes the method of voting—each member is to receive a ballot and mark a cross “x” secretly against the candidate selected. Rule 96 lists categories of invalid votes, including where: (a) any signature or word tends to reveal the voter’s identity; (b) the cross “x” is put against more than one name; (c) the mark is made in such a way that it is not ascertainable for whom the vote was cast; (d) no cross mark is made; or (e) the presiding officer’s signature is missing. The petitioners’ case hinged on clause (c)/(d) when a “+” rather than an “x” is used, arguing that such ballots are invalid. But the decisive factual finding after the remand was that every ballot actually carried an “x”—not a “+”—thereby defeating the factual premise of the challenge.

The Court noted that the ballots had been examined twice by the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer in the presence of all members and videographed, and on both occasions no infirmity was detected. There were no allegations of misconduct by the Presiding Officer or any candidate. The Court also addressed the petitioners’ reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kuldeep Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2024) 3 SCC 526, where the Presiding Officer’s own action had created suspicious ink marks, leading to invalidation. The High Court distinguished that precedent, observing that Kuldeep Kumar was decided to rectify proven electoral misconduct and protect the electoral process; in the present matter no comparable irregularity or officer-driven interference was alleged or found.

Critically, the High Court recalled that the earlier limited inquiry was ordered “only for the satisfaction” of the aggrieved person in the absence of specific rules or guidelines for such post-poll administrative verification. Having now been conducted twice with transparency and in the presence of all members, the administrative fact-finding was found adequate. Since the factual record showed that each ballot bore an “x,” the challenge premised on “+” marks necessarily failed. The Court therefore declined to embark on a further judicial re-count or to summon the ballots yet again, concluding that the dispute should be given quietus and that the office held by the removed Pramukh was, in any event, a position held at the will of the people. The writ petition was dismissed.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)

This decision reinforces three practical points for Bihar’s local-body elections:

1. Transparency with privacy: Ballot scrutiny may be ordered in exceptional circumstances to satisfy an aggrieved party, but it must respect voter secrecy. Here, the Court insisted earlier that any re-examination should avoid revealing voter identity and include a ballot-wise description. That guidance signals a workable balance: scrutiny for fairness, but no compromise on secrecy.
2. Deference to verified facts: Once ballots are twice examined under the District Magistrate’s supervision, in the presence of all members, and videographed, the Court expects litigants to accept the resulting factual record unless concrete illegality is shown. Bare suspicions about “+” marks cannot survive when the verified record shows only “x” marks.
3. Distinguishing precedents on electoral misconduct: The ruling clarifies that judgments like Kuldeep Kumar address proven officer-level misconduct; they do not justify reopening a clean poll merely because a party speculates about improper marks on ballots. Litigants must show comparable irregularities before invoking such precedents.

Overall, the case underscores that no-confidence motions in Panchayat institutions will be judicially respected when conducted as per the Rules and verified transparently, thereby maintaining the stability and legitimacy of local self-government.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Whether the District Magistrate’s post-remand order improperly validated all ballots without a proper ballot-wise analysis: The Court found that after remand the District Magistrate opened the sealed box in the presence of all members, videographed the process, and concluded that each ballot bore an “x”. The Court accepted this factual finding and saw no reason for further judicial intervention.
• Whether ballots allegedly marked with a “+” were invalid under Rules 95 and 96 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006: The Court noted the petitioners’ argument but held it was rendered academic because the official re-examination found only “x” marks. Invalidity under Rule 96 did not arise on the facts.
• Whether Supreme Court precedent in Kuldeep Kumar (2024) 3 SCC 526 mandated judicial reopening of the count: Distinguished. Kuldeep Kumar addressed a Presiding Officer’s improper ink marks; no comparable irregularity was alleged or found here.
• Relief: Writ petition dismissed; dispute given quietus.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Kuldeep Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors., (2024) 3 SCC 526.
• Shobhna Kumari v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 13287 of 2024 (Patna High Court) (ballot production to bring quietus).

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Kuldeep Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors., (2024) 3 SCC 526 — distinguished on facts; used to explain when courts intervene for proven electoral misconduct.

Case Title
Doli Devi v. State of Bihar & Others

Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19153 of 2024.

Citation(s)
2025 (1) PLJR 528

Coram and Names of Judges — Always prefix with Hon’ble
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar (Oral Judgment dated 19-12-2024).

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioners: Mr. S. B. K. Mangalam, with Mr. Vikash Kumar Singh, Advocates.
• For the State: Ms. Binita Singh, SC-28.
• For the State Election Commission (Panchayat): Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate.

Link to Judgment
MTUjMTkxNTMjMjAyNCMxI04=-1fxTnbhynBk=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.