The dispute arises from the 2023 Sringeri Assembly constituency election in Karnataka. After the initial declaration of Congress candidate TD Rajegowda as the winner, BJP candidate DN Jeevaraja challenged the result through prolonged litigation. In April 2026 the Karnataka High Court ordered a recount of the postal ballot votes entered for the constituency. The recount was conducted on 2 May 2026. During this process the returning officer verified 279 previously rejected postal ballots, which yielded a favourable outcome for Jeevaraja. Additionally, 255 postal votes that had been counted for Rajegowda were declared invalid in the recount. Consequently, Jeevaraja was declared the winner with a margin of 52 votes under Section 66 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 on 3 May 2026.
However, on 11 May 2026 the Supreme Court stayed the effect of the recount, restoring the status quo ante and reinstating TD Rajegowda as the MLA. The Supreme Court observed that the returning officer’s action of re‑verifying already validated postal ballots was prima facie invalid.
Following the recount that had favoured Jeevaraja, Congress agent Sudhir Kumar Murolli lodged a complaint at the Chikkamanglur Police Station on 11 May 2026. The complaint alleged that Jeevaraja, together with the returning officer and the deputy commissioner, had conspired to manipulate the recount and invalidate postal votes in favour of the Congress candidate. The FIR invoked Sections 143, 465, 468, 471, 120B, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 136 of the Representation of the People Act 1860 and Section 136 of the Representation of the People Act 1951.
Proceedings Before the Karnataka High Court
DN Jeevaraja approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the FIR, contending that the complaint was politically motivated. The deputy commissioner also filed a similar petition. The matter was listed for hearing on 17 July 2026. On 3 July 2026, a single judge bench presided over by Justice M Nagaprasanna heard the arguments.
During the hearing, counsel for the complainant (the Congress candidate’s agent) informed the court that an interim order was already in effect and sought permission to file objections. The counsel submitted that the mahazar recorded serious irregularities, noting that some postal ballot seals were broken, some trunks were damaged and locks were broken. On this basis the returning officer was made an accused in the FIR.
Justice Nagaprasanna responded orally, questioning the feasibility of the tampering allegation. He stated: “When it is in the custody of the election commission, you cannot allege tampering. How are you alleging tampering by these three petitioners [including the returning officer, former deputy commissioner and BJP candidate]?” He further asked: “How can someone go and break the seal when it is election commission’s custody?”
The petitioner’s counsel countered by asserting that the seal on the postal ballot batch numbered 20 remained intact, stating that other boxes had not been opened and that the seal was present on the relevant batch.
The complainant’s counsel replied that the returning officer and other officials were on deputation from the Election Commission and might not have been physically present at all times, adding that every officer operates under delegation by the Election Commission and the Commission does not maintain a constant physical presence.
Court’s Observations and Next Steps
The Karnataka High Court has not yet passed a final order on the petitions to quash the FIR. The bench’s oral remarks indicate a prima facie view that the allegation of tampering faces a significant hurdle given the custodial arrangement of the election materials. The matter remains listed for further hearing on 17 July 2026, at which point the parties may submit additional arguments and the court may consider the interim order already in operation.
The case continues to attract attention as it intersects questions of electoral integrity, the scope of custodial responsibility of the Election Commission, and the legal standards for initiating criminal proceedings based on alleged irregularities in the recount process.