The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling on Tuesday, declaring Kuldeep Kumar, an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) candidate, as the validly elected Mayor of Chandigarh Municipal Corporation. The court overturned the election result by presiding officer Anil Masih, citing the deliberate invalidation and discarding of eight votes captured on CCTV footage in favor of the AAP leader.
The court emphasized that “Counting the 8 votes for the petitioner will make him have 20 votes,” thereby affirming AAP’s victory in the Chandigarh mayoral polls. The initial outcome had seen the BJP winning on January 30, with Manoj Sonkar defeating Kuldeep Kumar after securing 16 votes against his rival’s 12. However, Sonkar subsequently resigned, and three AAP councillors defected to the BJP.
The controversy revolved around the 8 ballots declared invalid by the Presiding Officer. Out of a total of 36 votes, only 28 were counted, with the AAP councillor receiving 12 votes and the BJP candidate securing 16 votes.
Key points highlighted by the Supreme Court include:
- Deliberate Defacement: The court ruled that the presiding officer made a deliberate attempt to deface the 8 ballot papers.
- Prosecution Initiation: The bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, ordered the prosecution of returning officer Anil Masih for misdemeanour.
- Ballot Inspection: Upon physical inspection of the ballots, the court found that the 8 “invalid” ballots actually had votes in favor of the AAP councillor.
- Legal Proceedings: The court deemed it a fit case for initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against Anil Masih, directing the Registrar Judicial to issue a notice to him to show cause as to why steps should not be initiated against him under Section 340 CrPC.
- Ink Mark Inconsequence: The Supreme Court noted that the ink mark placed by the Presiding Officer at the end of the eight ballots had no consequence, emphasizing that all eight received the stamp for Kuldeep Kumar.
This ruling sheds light on the significance of fair and transparent electoral processes, signaling the court’s commitment to upholding the integrity of democratic practices.
