Election Investigations Guidebook the trial judge’s ruling and upheld Gandhi’s victory.135 Finders of fact should not treat election disputes “in a light-hearted manner” by relying “on unsubstantial grounds and irresponsible evidence,” the Court warned—instead, they “must look for serious assurance, unlying [sic] circumstances or unimpeachable documents.”136 In a more recent case, the Election Commission of India underscored the necessity of balancing the prompt resolution of a dispute with a thorough analysis of the evidence.137 In the dispute at issue, two splinter groups of one nationally-recognized political Types of Evidence in Election party each laid claim to the use of the same symbol on the ballot › Documentary (e.g., official election only a few days before the elec- forms and materials, campaign tion. When the Election Commis- finance reports) sion asked the two groups to file › Video or audio documentary proof to substantiate › Photographic their respective claims, the request › Electronic (e.g., data, data analysis, resulted in “voluminous records” containing “contentious issues logs) › Interviews or testimony and factual controversies.”138 Rath- › Official election observation reports er than come to a hasty decision, › Physical (e.g., ballot boxes) which “would be unfair and detri- › Expert testimony mental to the interests of both the › Any other evidence needed to contending parties,” the Commis- establish the facts of the case sion acknowledged that “no firm view can be formed on the basis of such disputed affidavits and controversial evidence.” 139 Recognizing instead the need for “proper inves- tigation and examination,” it postponed its decision until it could conduct “a further probe” of the evidence.140 Given the urgency of the upcoming 135 Id. ¶ 402. 136 Id. ¶ 480. 137 In re: Dispute Case No. 1 of 1999 (Aug. 7, 1999), reprinted in Election Comm’n of India, Landmark Judgments on Election Law 336–345 (vol. III, 2000). 138 Id. ¶¶ 14, 15. 139 Id. 140 Id. 62