A High Court of New Zealand judgment has dismissed applications for judicial review filed by the winning candidates of the 2025 Papatoetoe elections, ruling that the court cannot reconsider key factual findings due to limits set under the Local Electoral Act 2001.
The decision, delivered by Justice Jane Anderson on 5 March 2026, declined the orders sought by the applicants and dismissed both the applications for judicial review and requests for declarations.
The court noted that Section 103 of the Local Electoral Act prevents the removal or review of an election petition determination or order to the High Court by “any procedure”.
As a result, the court held it could not review matters connected to the factual inquiry undertaken by the original judge. These included the judge’s inference that misuse of voting papers may have extended beyond the specific instances identified and could have materially affected the election result.
"While it is unfortunate that the High Court was unable to examine the additional evidence we had prepared, the judgment makes it clear that this was due to the legal limits placed on the Court under the Local Electoral Act, particularly the finality clause in section 103," Kunal Bhalla, spokesperson for Papatoetoe Otara Action Team told The Indian Weekender.
Vi Hausia, petitioner in the District Court case, welcomed the ruling saying that the High Court judgement confirmed what the District Court already found, and "what the community of Papatoetoe had already voiced; the 2025 Papatoetoe Local Board election was permeated by proven fraud activities and cannot be trusted."
"The Papatoetoe-ōtara Action Team, who tried to appeal an election result infected by fraudulent voting, appears to be the only ones who trust it," Hausia added.
"This re-election is happening because I took this case to court. Your Papatoetoe Labour candidates and I stood firm in both the District Court and the High Court to protect your voice," Hausia, emphasised.
"Both the High Court and the District Court have ruled that Papatoetoe deserves a fresh election. It has never been more important for you to engage and vote," Hausia added.
Labour candidate Raj Pardeep Singh also weighed in on today's decision by the High Court and said that the dismissal of the judicial review "confirms what Labour Party believed from the beginning — that the process has been fair and that our justice system works to protect democracy."
"As we move forward toward the by-election, let us do so with unity, respect, and a shared commitment to truth and fairness," Singh added.
The court also rejected arguments that the judge should have conducted further inquiry into the facts, including seeking information from the applicants who were aware of the petition but had not filed a notice of intention to oppose it.
Other claims raised by the applicants (Papatoetoe Ōtara Action Team — Kunal Bhalla, Sandeep Saini, Paramjeet Singh and Kushma Nair) including alleged errors in the standard of proof, misconstruction of jurisdiction, and breaches of natural justice, were considered but ultimately not established.
The applicants had also sought declarations under the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 as alternative relief if judicial review was barred. However, the judge declined to issue such declarations, finding they would not provide useful guidance.
The court also noted that the original decision did not make findings implicating the applicants in electoral fraud.
The order also referred to social media comments portraying the District Court judgment as “immigrant corruption” and concluding “Indian candidates masterminded fraudulent votes”, describing them as a misleading and improper report of the decision.
"New Zealand is a country built on fairness, equality, and respect for the rule of law. There is no place for racism, hatred, or attempts to divide communities in our society. Efforts to racialise democratic processes or target communities only weaken the values that make New Zealand strong," Raj Pardeep Singh reflected.
The High Court further noted that, “Mr Hausia does not allege – nor did the Judge find – that the applicants had any involvement in the misuse of voting papers identified in the Decision.”
“The applicants have strongly condemned that conduct, whether it arose through a misguided attempt to assist them or through other mischief.”
Police enquiries into the electoral fraud remain ongoing.
The High Court also noted that the applicants’ conduct is “not impugned at all by the Decision.”
“Nor is there any comment on the identity of those who may be associated with the misuse of voting papers. The Decision emphasises that this is by persons unknown," the Court noted.
Bhalla said, "This is important because for months there have been rumours and social media comments attempting to link our team and even the wider Indian community to these issues, which the judgment makes clear is a misrepresentation."
Looking ahead, Bhalla said that the focus for the team now returns to the voters. "The by-election begins shortly and our campaign is continuing with even greater intensity," he added.
The ruling follows the final hearing on 17 February 2026, when Justice Anderson reserved judgment on whether the court would consider a judicial review of a lower court order that voided last year’s Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board election.
During the hearing at the High Court in Auckland, counsel for the applicants argued that the increase in voter turnout alone did not prove wrongdoing. The four winning candidates from the Papatoetoe Ōtara Action Team — Kunal Bhalla, Sandeep Saini, Paramjeet Singh and Kushma Nair — were also present in court.
Their counsel argued that more voters had enrolled in Papatoetoe than in any other electorate across Auckland.
Counsel for the petitioner said there was no dispute that 79 ballot papers were misused but challenged the District Court’s decision to go beyond that figure, arguing there was insufficient evidence to treat it as the “tip of the iceberg” or to conclude that widespread fraud had occurred.
Citing the Vote On The Go programme run by Auckland Council — which has since been removed for the upcoming by-election — the counsel noted that communities and first-time candidates used the initiative to help residents enrol and reduce barriers to participation.
The petitioner also argued that the Papatoetoe Ōtara Action Team did not appear in the District Court proceedings in December because due process had not been followed.
Simon Mitchell, representing Labour candidates, told the court that the 2025 election voting had irregularities. He disagreed with suggestions that the election outcome was the result of campaign efforts by the candidates or demographic shifts in the electorate, arguing that the irregular special votes recorded in Papatoetoe stood out as an anomaly compared with the rest of Auckland.
This article has been updated to include official comments from Vi Hausi, Raj Pardeep Singh and Papatoetoe Ōtara Action Team