'Concerned About Horse Trading' : Supreme Court Proposes Declaring Chandigarh Mayor Election Results Based On Present Votes Instead Of Fresh Election

CJI : Mr Masih, I am asking you questions. If I find that you are not giving me a truthful answer, you will be prosecuted. Every word that you say, you will be held liable for what you say. You are not in a political contest you are in a Court of Law, so please understand that. This is a serious matter. We have seen the video. What were you doing looking at the camera putting out crosses on the ballot papers? Why were you putting marks?

Masih : Sir, these councillors were making so much noise - camera! camera! camera! , that is why I am looking at what is the Camera they are talking about, that's why I was looking at the cameras. .....After the voting, I had to put signs on the ballot papers. The ballot papers which were defaced, I was just highlighting that it should not be mixed again that was the only reason.

CJI : It is very obvious from the video that you look at some of the ballot papers, depending upon the cross on the top or the bottom, you put your signature and put the ballot paper in the tray. Where the cross is at the other end of the ballot paper, you put an X mark on the ballot paper , it was very clear that you were putting X marks on certain ballot papers. Did you or did you not put X marks on certain ballot papers?

Masih : Yes. I marked on the defaced

CJI : On how many ballot papers was X mark put?

Masih : 8 ballot papers.

In his defence, Mr Masih explained that he had only put markings (and not an X mark per say) on those ballot papers to ensure that they do not get mixed with other papers. He also informed that right when he did these markings, Mr Manohar and Mrs Premlata belonging to the AAP party came and started snatching and destroying the ballot papers. He further added that the Chandigarh Police Marshalls had to intervene and preserve the ballot papers amidst the said chaos.

The CJI however, still pressed as to what necessitated the presiding officer to make such marking in the first place. The bench asked him under which provision of the law was he entitled to make such markings, as his post as a presiding officer only allowed him to put his signature under each ballot paper and nothing beyond.

CJI : Ballot paper ko deface aap kyu kar rahe the? App aise kyu kare? Aapko sign karna hai? (Why did you deface the ballot papers? You had to sign the papers only. Where is it provided in the rules that you can put other marks in the ballot papers)

Masih: Sir I was highlighting that they are defaced

CJI : So it is admitted that you have put your marks on the ballot

Masih : Jee (yes) Sir

Considering the above response of the Officer, the CJI expressed his utter disappointment towards the flouting of duties as a Returning Officer which as per him deserved prosecution.

"His answer is very clear, he has to be prosecuted. I think interfering with the electoral democracy by a Returning Officer is the gravest possible thing."

On the previous hearing, the Court 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."

The Court directed the Presiding Officer to remain personally present before the Court on the next date of hearing to explain his conduct.

"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.

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.

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.

Case Details : KULDEEP KUMAR vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH SLP(C) No. 002998 - / 2024