The Supreme Court today set aside the January 30 results of the Chandigarh Mayor Elections and declared Congress/AAP joint candidate Kuldeep Kumar as the winner after concluding that Anil Masih, the presiding officer, tampered with the ballots, in a dramatic turn of events.
Kumar’s win comes after the top court declared the eight ballots in question as valid which gave him 20 votes, a clear majority over BJP leader Manoj Sonkar who was declared winner with 16 votes. Sonkar resigned on Sunday, even as three AAP councilors defected to the saffron party,
“It is evident that Anil Masih, the Presiding Officer, has made a deliberate attempt to deface eight ballots which were cast in Kuldeep Kumar’s favour so that that BJP leader Manoj Sonkar will be declared as the elected candidate,” the Supreme Court observed.
Masih’s actions went beyond the remit of the rules and “unlawfully altered the course of mayoral elections” the top court observed.
High drama ensued on January 30 when CCTV footage caught Masih tampering with votes the votes during the counting in the Chandigarh mayoral polls. The top court on February 5 issued notice on pleas challenging the Chandigarh Mayor elections on grounds of ballot tampering. Issuing notice, the Supreme Court said it was “appalled” at the manner in which the Chandigarh Mayor Elections were conducted. The top court noted, the high court had not done enough and observed the electoral process was a mockery and a “murder of democracy”.
It's obvious the returning officer “defaced the ballot papers,” CJI said at the time.
Presiding officer tampered with ballots: SC
The top court heard pleas challenging the January 30 results of the Chandigarh Mayor elections over a period of two days which included examining the defaced ballots and viewing CCTV footage of the election and counting process.
“How are the ballots defaced?” The bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked Anil Masih, the presiding officer, who claimed to have marked the ballots because they were defaced.
The bench, however, disagreed and found the votes—all cast in Kumar’s favour—to be valid. The bench concluded Masih deliberately tampered with the ballots.
“It is evident that in each of the eight ballots, that the vote has been duly cast in favour of the petitioner (Kuldeep Kumar). The Presiding Officer has evidently put his own mark for the purpose of treating the ballot as invalid,” the top court said.
The Supreme Court made scathing observations about the election process and pulled up the presiding officer for misconduct. The top court deprecated Masih’s conduct on two levels when it observed that his conduct “unlawfully altered the course of Mayoral elections” and for his February lies before court where he said the eight ballots were marked because they were defaced.
The bench considered ordering fresh elections however, observed that this would be “inappropriate” considering only the counting process was called in question. “Setting aside of the entire election process will compound the destruction of the democratic principles which happened due to the conduct of the Presiding Officer,” CJI DY Chandrachud said.
“This Court is duty bound to ensure that the democratic process is not set at naught by such subterfuges. We are therefore of the view that the Court must step in such exceptional circumstances to ensure that the basic democratic mandate is ensured,” the bench concluded.