The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the results of Chandigarh’s Mayor election, in which the BJP candidate Manoj Kumar Sonkar was declared as the winner and ordered to take into account the eight votes which were declared defaced by the Presiding Officer Anil Masih on January 30. The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass the directions to do “complete justice.” The Top Court order thus paved the way for a clear victory for the AAP-Congress combine candidate Kuldeep Kumar as the winner. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra while pulling up returning officer Anil Masih for ‘contempt of court”, found that the Presiding officer deliberately defaced Ballots. The CJI said that “Setting aside the election process itself would not be proper since the issue is only when the presiding officer made the counting”, the bench observed. The bench said that the invalidated ballots “shall be recounted… treated as valid” and “results declared based on that”. The Apex Court ‘’though did not announce the name of the winner but its order clears the name of AAP-Congress combine candidate Kuldeep Kumar as the winner of Chandigarh Mayor polls.’’ The Supreme Court held that ‘’Masih deliberately, unlawfully, altered the course of the mayoral election. The court must preserve democratic principles,’’ Justice Chandrachud said. ‘’This Court is duty-bound to ensure that the process of electoral democracy is not thwarted, and the court must step in to ensure that the basic mandate of electoral Democracy is preserved.’’
Earlier Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Sonkar was declared elected as the Chandigarh Mayor. Sonkar, however, resigned on February 18 as the controversy over his eligibility erupted. AAP candidate Kuldeep Kumar had approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court for relief and a probe in the matter, alleging fraud in BJP’s win and forgery in the rejection of the eight votes. However, after the High Court refused to give urgent relief to Kuldeep Kumar. He then moved the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the operation of the notification issued for the appointment of Sonkar as the Mayor. Supreme Court took up the matter on an urgent basis and summoned all records and videos of the polling process. The Court found that Masih had declared eight votes as invalid and put a one-line mark at the end of these ballots. Masih claimed that he had put these marks since these ballots were already defaced and so he wanted to segregate them. However, the Court today found Masih’s statement to be false, as the ballots were not defaced. The Court noted that as per Regulation 6 of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations 1996, a ballot can be invalid only under three circumstances – (1) more than one vote is cast, (2) there is any mark identifying the voter, (3) the marks are placed in an ambiguous manner making it doubtful to whom the vote is cast. The Court held that none of these circumstances is present in the 8 ballots. Hence, the ballots are to be treated as valid, ignoring the marking made by the Presiding Officer. The Court found the Presiding Officer to be guilty of misdemeanour. The Top Court observed that “the Presiding Officer has made a deliberate attempt to deface 8 ballots which were cast in favour of the petitioner so that the 8th respondent (BJP candidate) will be declared as the elected candidate.”
The case pertains to a matter wherein the Deputy Commissioner of UT Chandigarh is designated as the Deputy Commissioner for section 60 and other relevant provisions. Shri Vinay Pratap Singh acting in his capacity as prescribed authority directed a meeting of councillors at 11 am on January 18. Shri Anil Masih one of the councillors who was not standing for elections was named as presiding authority. The agenda was to conduct election of Mayor, Senior Deputy Mayor. CJI led the bench while noting the facts of the case and the High Court order in the case said, “it has come to notice that the first candidate had withdrawn his candidature and noted by the high court as well. A total of 35 councillors were eligible to vote for the mayoral polls and apart from this MP from the UT was also eligible to vote and therefore there was a total of 36 eligible voters.” Elections to the post of mayor is governed by Chandigarh Municipal elections conduct of rules. Regulation 6 provides for the election of the Mayor. The CJI said that the results were announced by the presiding officer on January 30. The result sheet shows 36 votes were polled. 8 were invalidated.. Petitioner had 12 votes whereas the 8th respondent had 16 votes. The presiding officer declared the election results. This led to a plea before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which declined to stay the election results and the petition was posted to be heard after 3 weeks. Yesterday the Apex Court had directed that “The ballot papers which are placed in the custody of Registrar General (of the High Court) be produced before this Court by a judicial officer by tomorrow 2 PM. The necessary security arrangement shall be made to ensure safe transit and proper preservation and custody of ballot papers along with judicial officers. “The bench had said. The Returning Officer Anil Masih will also remain present personally before the court tomorrow as well, the bench directed yesterday. The Ballot papers of the Chandigarh mayor election were placed before Apex Court today.
The bench said all records were sequestered and produced before this court in sealed and secure custody by Shri Varun Nagpal, OSD Litigation of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The CJI after going through the ballot papers noted that all 8 invalidated ballots were cast in favour of Congress-AAP joint candidate Kuldeep Kumar. The video of the Polls was played in the open court and was watched by everyone present in Court room Number 1. The entire votes counting video… was watched by the Bench as well as all the lawyers present there. The Chief Justice then said, “Please upload the video on everybody’s screen, let all of them see … a little entertainment is good for everybody!. The bench while watching the video in the court said, “See Kuldeep Kumar and Manoj Sonkar. What has been done is… 8 ballots invalidated. All 8 have received the stamp for Kuldeep Kumar. The RO signs at the bottom and puts a single line there.. In everywhere he puts a single line. CJI said, “I have a question for Mr Masih you said that you put the line because it was defaced.. Where has it been defaced? Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said he said that in court too. Anil Masih exacerbated the felony by repeating that before this court. It was beyond what was done that day. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Returning Officer Masih said, there is a small dot if it is seen clearly.. What he has done is ..in one of them there is a small dot. some are folded from the top.. by a line tick. he disqualified the same and that was his assessment. He looked at the video because there was a commotion outside .. no one can do this with cameras present.. no guilty man is looking at the camera, Rohatagi justified.
Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Advocate General of Punjab Gurminder Singh, Advocates RPS Bara, Ferry Sofat, Kuldeep Kaur appeared on behalf of petitioner Kuldeep Kumar. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for Manoj Sonkar, the BJP Mayoral candidate. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Kuldeep Kumar’s lawyers pressed for a re-counting, saying that re-election would give the opposite party the benefit of councillors who switched sides. Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh pointed out that the one-line put by the Presiding Officer in the ballots won’t make them invalid. Dr Singhvi said nobody should have the privilege of eating the fruits of a poisonous tree. He is defending the dot now. The Solicitor General said They ask voters to fold the slips laterally.. The RO explained the procedure himself. it is on video.. He is very well aware of why Dot is there and he is misleading his senior counsel. He asked for it to be folded. Judges continue to look at the screen. The CJI said we have got the relevant timelines also.. at this rate we all will be here till 5:45 pm. (laughs) Defending the Returning officer Rohatgi said, “ it is clear that the ballots were snatched by the AAP members.. there are dots and some are folded.. one may say anything but not to call someone as a thief… it was all wrong that he looked at the camera etc. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh said Please see section 38(3)… Singhvi said that 38(3) will apply only if you are validly elected.. we are asking for a recount based on a direct judgment of this court.. horse trading is a phrase which insults the horse itself, Singhvi said.