The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, while setting aside the result as “contrary to law” and declaring Kuldeep Kumar as the “validly elected candidate”, refused to quash the election process itself.
The Supreme Court has invalidated the outcome of the January 30 election for the Mayor of Chandigarh. This decision came after the court discovered that the presiding officer, Anil Masih, had intentionally nullified eight ballots cast in favor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-Congress candidate, Kuldeep Kumar ‘Tita.’
The Bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, declared the election result as “contrary to law” and proclaimed Kuldeep Kumar as the “validly elected candidate.” However, the court declined to annul the entire election process itself.
The court’s decision to overturn the result was based on its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers it to administer “complete justice” and uphold the integrity of electoral democracy. The court emphasized that allowing such irregularities to persist would undermine the fundamental principles upon which the entire democratic structure of our nation is built.
The Bench stated that it was apparent that “while the petitioner is reflected to have polled 12 votes, the eight votes, which are treated as invalid, were wrongly considered as such,” and “each of those… invalid votes was, in fact, validly cast… in favor of the petitioner.”
Consequently, Kuldeep had, in reality, garnered 20 votes, surpassing the BJP candidate, Manoj Sonkar, who secured 16 votes. The court consequently issued an order declaring that the election result as announced by the presiding officer would be nullified and set aside.
Sonkar resigned on Sunday, anticipating the court’s verdict issued on Tuesday.
The significance of this mayoral election lies in the limited powers vested in the Mayor of Chandigarh Municipal Corporation. The Mayor is tasked with convening meetings and determining the agenda. Despite the corporation’s five-year term, the Mayor is elected for only one year. The position is reserved for a female candidate in the first and fourth years of each corporation. The most recent election for the corporation took place in 2021.
This year’s mayoral election held political significance as it marked the first-time alliance between the AAP and Congress against the BJP, potentially shaping alliances for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. While the parties are in the opposition INDIA bloc, they have been in discussions for a seat-sharing arrangement in Delhi, despite deciding to contest separately in Punjab.
The situation leading up to the elections was marked by initial scheduling on January 18, only to be postponed when AAP and Congress councillors arrived at the venue and were informed of the delay due to the illness of presiding officer Anil Masih. The Union Territory Administration proposed holding the election on February 6, but Kuldeep sought relief from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which ordered the election to take place on January 30.
Before the election, AAP had 13 councillors, and Congress had seven, giving the alliance a clear advantage in the 36-member House. The BJP claimed 15 votes, including 14 of its councillors and the vote of Chandigarh Lok Sabha MP Kirron Kher. Additionally, one councillor belonged to the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), and the BJP asserted the support of this councillor, totaling 16 votes.
On election day, after presiding officer Masih invalidated eight votes from the AAP-Congress, BJP’s Sonkar was declared the winner.
After videos surfaced showing Masih marking ballot papers to render them invalid, Kuldeep took the matter to the High Court and later to the Supreme Court.
On February 5, CJI Chandrachud observed that it was evident that Masih had defaced the ballots, stating, “this man has to be prosecuted.” The court expressed shock at the “mockery” and “murder” of democracy and summoned Masih on January 19.
On Tuesday, the court declared that “the presiding officer has evidently put his own mark on the bottom half of the ballot for the purpose of creating a ground for treating the ballot to have been invalidly cast… so as to secure a result… by which the eighth respondent (Sonkar) would be declared… elected.”
The court condemned Masih’s conduct, stating that it must be deprecated because, “firstly,… he has unlawfully altered the course of the Mayoral election” and “secondly, [by] making a solemn statement before this court on February 19, [he] has expressed a patent falsehood for which he must be held accountable.”
Masih had informed the court on Monday that he marked the already defaced ballot papers to avoid confusion with other ballots. However, on Tuesday, the court instructed the issuance of a show cause notice to him.
In the meantime, three AAP councillors joined the BJP on Sunday. If the court had ordered a fresh election instead of solely annulling the result, the AAP-Congress tally would have dropped from 20 to 17, while the BJP’s votes would have increased to 19 (including the SAD councillor’s vote and MP Kher’s vote), giving the party a majority among the 36 ballots. Unlike elections for Parliament or state Assemblies, municipal elections do not have an anti-defection law.
