New Delhi, Nov. 22: The Supreme Court has said the will of the people in a democracy was “paramount” and election results could not be set aside on trivial grounds.

The ruling came as a two-judge bench disposed of a petition filed by a defeated candidate who alleged that the winner got two government officials to canvass for him during campaigning for a Punjab Assembly seat six years ago.

Earlier, the high court had found the charge untrue and concluded that one of the officers was a gazetted officer but was no longer in service and the other was in government service but was not a gazetted officer.

Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, “obtaining or procuring” assistance of a gazetted officer for furthering the prospects of a candidate is illegal.

The high court dismissed Baldev Singh Mann’s petition in December 2006, saying the evidence of corrupt practice was not strong enough to upset the verdict in favour of Surjit Singh Dhiman, who won by less than 1,000 votes.

Mann, who had been nominated by the Akali Dal, then moved the apex court. He said his Independent rival got Gurbachan Singh Bachhi, an administrative member of the Punjab State Electricity Board, and B.S. Shergill, deputy director, panchayats, with the rank of a gazetted officer, to help him.

He alleged that Bachhi offered out-of-turn power connections to villagers while Shergill used his influence as a panchayat officer to canvass for Dhiman.

But the apex court yesterday upheld the high court’s view that allegations of corrupt practices should be “clear and precise and the charge should be proved to the hilt”.

The bench said though the purity of the poll process had to be safeguarded, setting aside an election result involved serious consequences as re-election meant an enormous load on public funds and the administration.

“The will of the people who have exercised their franchise in an election in favour of a returned candidate must be respected…” the bench said.

The judges said in a democratic country, the will of the people was “paramount and the election of (an) elected candidate should not be lightly interfered with”.

The court said Mann — who polled 34,103 votes to Dhiman’s 35,099 — lost by less than 1,000 votes and added that the high court had rightly observed that it was tough to accept defeat by such a narrow margin.

“Therefore, the candidate who has narrowly lost would ordinarily make all efforts and gather all kind of material against the elected candidate and level all kinds of allegations of corrupt practices whether substantiated or not,” the bench said.

“In the instant case, this is what seems to have happened.”