In the course of the hearing, the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, in the Supreme Court, observed that the eight ballots disqualified by Returning Officer Anil Masih were all marked in favor of Kuldeep Kumar, the candidate from the Aam Aadmi Party.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today (20 Feb 2024), The Supreme Court quashed the decision by Returning Officer (RO) Anil Masih (the Presiding Officer) to declare a BJP candidate as Chandigarh Mayor on January 30 and declared Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) candidate Kuldeep Kumar to be the winner of the mayoral polls instead.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Orders Vote Recount in Chandigarh Mayor Polls, Says 8 Ballots Valid
Following the Court’s dismissal of RO Masih’s justification for declaring eight votes for the AAP candidate as invalid, a panel comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued an order.
“Counting the 8 votes for the petitioner (AAP candidate Kumar), which were deemed invalid due to markings, will result in him having 20 votes. We hereby invalidate the election result declared by the presiding officer. The AAP candidate is declared the winner of the Chandigarh mayoral polls,”
-the Court decreed.
Additionally, the Court strongly condemned the actions of Returning Officer Anil Masih, asserting that he had unlawfully altered the election course and made false statements before the Court. Consequently, the Court issued a show-cause notice to Masih, stating,
“Masih could not have been unaware of the falsehood in his statement.”
The Registrar Judicial was directed to present Masih with the notice, enabling him to respond. The Court was addressing a petition by AAP Councillor Kuldeep Kumar, alleging fraud in RO Masih’s decision to declare BJP’s Manoj Sonkar (now resigned) as the Chandigarh Mayor on January 30.
“In this court yesterday, the officer made a statement that he had done so because he found the ballots were defaced. As a matter of fact, it is recorded that none of the ballots were defaced,”
-the bench noted.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Orders Vote Recount in Chandigarh Mayor Polls, Says 8 Ballots Valid
“The votes are cast for Kuldeep Kumar. What he (Returning Officer) does is, he puts a single line. Just one line, as seen in the video,”
-CJI Chandrachud said.
BJP’s Manoj Sonkar emerged victorious in the Mayor elections on January 30, securing 16 votes compared to the 12 votes garnered by the Congress-AAP candidate, Kuldeep Kumar. This outcome transpired despite the AAP-Congress alliance holding a majority in the house with 20 members. Out of the total 36 votes cast, eight were deemed invalid during the counting process.
Initially, AAP councillor Kuldeep Kumar contested the Mayor election results before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Following the court’s refusal to halt the election results, he filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Interestingly, while the matter was pending before the apex court, the BJP candidate, Sonkar, relinquished the Mayor’s post on Monday, coinciding with three AAP Councillors defecting to the BJP. This development drew the attention of the top court, which expressed distress over such “horse-trading.”
During Monday’s hearing, Masih stated that he had marked the eight ballot papers submitted by the AAP-Congress alliance as invalid due to defacement. The Court then directed the production of the ballot papers and counting process video.
In today’s hearing, upon reviewing the ballot papers, the bench observed that the ballots invalidated by Masih were actually votes cast in favor of the AAP candidate. The Chief Justice questioned Masih’s justification, highlighting discrepancies in his explanation.
After examining the ballot papers, the bench noted that these ballot papers which had been crossed as invalid by Masih were clearly votes cast in favour of the AAP candidate.
“See, Kuldeep Kumar and Manoj Kumar.. What has been done is … eight ballots invalidated.. all eight have received the stamp for Kuldeep Kumar.. The RO signs at the bottom and puts a single line there … everywhere, he puts a single line.. I have a question to Mr. Masih – you said that you put the line because it was defaced … Where has it been defaced?”
-CJI Chandrachud asked.
“He (Masih) said that in court too! Anil Masih exacerbated the felony by repeating that before this court,”
-added Senior Advocate AM Singhvi who represented Kuldeep Kumar (petitioner before the Court). Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi defended Masih’s conduct by submitting:
“There is a small dot, if it is seen clearly … What he has done is … in one of them, there is a small dot … Some (ballot papers) are folded from the top … By virtue of a line tick, he disqualified the same and that was his assessment.”
Rohatgi added that Masih was only seen looking up at the CCTV cameras in the counting area as there was a “commotion outside.”
“No one can do this with cameras present … There is no guilty man looking at the camera,”
-Rohatgi said.
After the Court played the video of the January 30 vote count in the courtroom, Rohatgi also argued that,
“It is clear that the ballots were snatched by the AAP members.. There are dots and some are folded.. One may say anything but not to call someone as a thief… It was all wrong that he looked at the camera etc.”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi defended Masih’s actions, asserting that the marks made were justified by faint dots and folded papers. However, the Court played the video footage, revealing Masih’s marking of the ballots before any alleged commotion or ballot snatching occurred.
The Court, however, replied that Masih can be seen making these marks first and declaring the result, before any commotion broke out or any attempts were made to snatch the ballot papers.
Meanwhile, Punjab’s Advocate General (AG) Gurminder Singh argued that Masih’s explanation of events was misleading.
“They ask voters to fold the slips laterally… The RO explained the procedure himself… It is on video.. He (Masih) is very well aware why dot is there and he is misleading his senior counsel. He asked for it to be folded,”
-the AG told the Court.
Punjab’s Advocate General, Gurminder Singh, argued that Masih’s account of events was misleading, emphasizing that Masih had instructed voters to fold the slips.
CASE TITLE:
Kuldeep Kumar vs UT Chandigarh and ors.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
