On January 24, the Supreme Court suggested appointing an independent observer to ensure that the elections are conducted in a “free and fair” manner. The court had also hinted that a retired high court judge could be considered for the role.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, on Monday, January 27, 2025, announced that it would appoint an independent observer for the Chandigarh mayoral election scheduled for January 30.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh passed the order but did not immediately disclose the observer’s name.
The court ordered, “The entire election process should be conducted in his presence and duly videographed.”
It further directed that the Chandigarh administration would bear the cost of paying an honorarium to the observer.
Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh, representing the incumbent mayor Kuldeep Kumar, suggested that a retired high court judge could be appointed as the independent observer.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Chandigarh administration, stated, “We have no problem with the appointment of an independent observer, but it should not become a precedent so that all municipal corporations start approaching the apex court.”
In response to this, the bench clarified, “We are only concerned with fairness and transparency of the process.”
The current mayor, Kuldeep Kumar, affiliated with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), had earlier approached the Supreme Court seeking a “show of hands” voting method instead of a “secret ballot” for the upcoming election. The mayor argued that this would ensure fairness and transparency in the polling process.
However, the court dismissed this request, stating it would not interfere with the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling on the matter.
On January 24, the Supreme Court had suggested appointing an independent observer to ensure that the elections are conducted in a “free and fair” manner. The court had also hinted that a retired high court judge could be considered for the role.
ALSO READ: Chandigarh Mayor Elections: Anil Masih Apologizes to Supreme Court
The bench emphasized that their primary objective was to ensure an impartial and transparent election process. While passing the order, the court reiterated that the observer’s name would be disclosed later.
Brief Facts:
Kuldeep Kumar, the current Mayor of Chandigarh Municipal Corporation, previously moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court alleging vote tampering in the mayoral elections held last year.
In that election, Manoj Sonkar, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate, was initially declared the winner, securing 16 votes compared to the 12 votes received by Kuldeep Kumar, who was supported by the Congress and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). However, it was alleged that the Presiding Officer, Anil Masih, invalidated 8 ballots favoring Kuldeep Kumar.
On February 20, the Supreme Court declared the election results announced by the Presiding Officer as invalid, finding that the rejection of the 8 votes was deliberate and intended to disqualify ballots favoring Kuldeep Kumar. Consequently, the Court set aside Sonkar’s victory and declared Kuldeep Kumar as the rightful Mayor.
Following this decision, the General House of the Municipal Corporation acknowledged the flaws in the voting process and reportedly introduced a resolution proposing to amend the voting method for mayoral elections. The proposed change aimed to replace the ballot paper system with a show-of-hands voting method. However, the Deputy Commissioner issued a letter to proceed with the election without implementing the proposed resolution.
Aggrieved by this decision, Kuldeep Kumar approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking to invalidate the election schedule set for January 24. The High Court subsequently quashed the notification, directed the polls to be rescheduled after January 29, and allowed Kuldeep Kumar to continue as mayor until the new election. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Kuldeep Kumar escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Case Title: KULDEEP KUMAR Versus U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ORS., Diary No. 4190-2025
