Also Read - MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Three Accused of Providing Equipment for Advertising Religious Conversion

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?”

Also Read - MP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Alleged Journalist in Extortion Case

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.

Also Read - Department Of Education Cannot Impose Recruitment Restrictions On Aided Minority Schools: Delhi High Court

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.

Also Read - Bombay High Court Upholds Disqualification of Co‑operative Housing Society Managing Committee Members