Chandigarh Mayor Election | 'Obvious That Presiding Officer Defaced Ballot Papers, This Is Murder Of Democracy' : Supreme Court
The Court directed the Presiding Officer to remain personally present before the Court on February 19 to explain his conduct.
The Supreme Court on Monday (February 5) came down heavily on the Presiding Officer who conducted the Chandigarh Mayor elections by orally saying, "It is obvious that he defaced the ballot papers.""Is this the way he conducts the elections? This is a mockery of democracy. This is a murder of democracy. This man should be prosecuted," Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud remarked after seeing...
The Supreme Court on Monday (February 5) came down heavily on the Presiding Officer who conducted the Chandigarh Mayor elections by orally saying, "It is obvious that he defaced the ballot papers."
"Is this the way he conducts the elections? This is a mockery of democracy. This is a murder of democracy. This man should be prosecuted," Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud remarked after seeing the video of the controversial election, in which a BJP candidate was declared the winner after the votes of 8 councillors of the Congress-AAP alliance were declared invalid.
The CJI said that the Court is "appalled" to see the behaviour of the Presiding Officer. "Why is he looking at the camera and running like a fugitive?", CJI said after seeing the video of the proceedings.
After watching the video, CJI said that the Presiding Officer was seen making alterations in the ballot paper. "Is this the behaviour of a returning officer? He looks at the camera, and defaces the ballot obviously. Where there is a cross at the bottom (of the ballot paper), he puts it into the tray. The moment there is a cross at the top, the man defaces the ballot and looks at the camera. Tell him that the Supreme Court is watching him. We will not allow democracy to be murdered like this. The great stabilising force in the country is the purity of the election process," CJI said.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra was hearing a petition filed by AAP Councillor Kuldeep Kumar (the defeated Mayor candidate) challenging the refusal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to stay the election results.
Issuing notice on Kumar's petition, the Court directed the ensuing meeting of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation scheduled on February 7 shall stand deferred.
The Court ordered that the entire record of the Mayor election should be sequestered and be kept with the Punjab &Haryana High Court Registrar General and the ballots, and videography be preserved. The Deputy Commissioner of Chandigarh UT, who has possession of the records at present, should hand over them to the HC Registrar General by today 5 PM.
The Court directed the Presiding Officer to remain personally present before the Court on February 19 to explain his conduct.
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a BJP candidate was chosen as the Presiding Officer and he acted in a partisan manner by deliberately defacing eight ballot papers of the Congress-AAP councillors and rendering their votes invalid.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta contended that the video only showed a one-sided picture and urged that the Court should take a comprehensive view after seeing the entire records.
"An appropriate interim order was warranted which HC has failed to do," CJI DY Chandrachud said sounding critical of the High Court's approach.
Background
The AAP councillor has approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the High Court to list his petition after three weeks without granting an immediate stay of the results.
He moved the High Court alleging vote tampering in the Chandigarh Mayor Elections, where Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Manoj Sonkar emerged victorious on Tuesday. The BJP candidate secured 16 votes against the 12 votes received by Kuldeep Kumar, the candidate backed by Congress and AAP. The Presiding Officer rejected 8 votes as invalid.
He sought setting aside of the impugned election result "as the same is a result of complete fraud and forgery laid upon the democratic process" and prayed for holding of fresh elections in a free and fair manner under the supervision of a retired High Court Judge.
On January 31, the High Court denied his prayer to dissolve the functioning of the office until further orders. "Whether counting was proper, whether procedure was followed or not…These are all questions of facts," it reasoned.