| CITATION | 2024 INSC 129 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 20th February,2024 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Kuldeep Kumar |
| RESPONDENT | U.T Chandigarh and others |
| BENCH | CJI. Dr. Dhananjaya .Y. Chandrachud, ,Justice J.B Pardiwala , Justice Manoj Misra |
Introduction:
In the case of Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and others, the supreme court of the country in a very unusual and probably unprecedented scenario gave its verdict. It is rarely ever found in the Indian justice system where a court in India has not set aside an entire election but has only set aside the result of an election and restored the results which should’ve been accounted for if not for the tampering done by the official in question in this case. In simpler words, the incident that took in place in Chandigarh mayor electoral campaign, is like a batsman running at the crease while the fielder is collecting the ball, but before the fielder performs any further action, the umpire knocks off the stumps by himself and eventually declares the batsman out even while the camera indicates contrary. There was a tremendous uproar reported in the country after this incident. It also posed a significant question over the territorial sovereignty of the country, the independence of the Election commission body of the country as an individual self-governed body. Not to forget it also questions and stains our identity of democracy, which acts as a pillar for our country to thrive upon.
Facts of the case:
1. On 10th January 2024, IAS Mr Vinay Pratap Singh acting in his lawful capacity of Deputy Commissioner of Union Territory of Chandigarh being the prescribed authority directed the convening of a meeting of the Councillors at 11 am on 18th January 2024.The main purpose of this meeting was to discuss the details regarding the election of Mayor, Senior Deputy Mayor,Deputy Mayor.
2. The Election body agreed to comply with all the directions issued by the court which were specifically requested by the appellant,Kuldeep Kumar for the court to issue on grounds to conduct free and fair elections with transparency.
3. The elections were set to be postponed on the grounds of leave taken by the presiding officer Shri Anil Masih on the grounds of ill health and purported law and order situation in the U.T of Chandigarh.
4.The Hon’ble High Court observed that postponement for a time period of 18 days stood unreasonable without any valid ground provided by the presiding officer and henceforth gave directions to conduct elections 30th January at 10 am along with special directions to ensure a smooth and speedy electoral process by maintaining a conducive environment.
5. The electoral fray for the post of mayor was between two candidates,namely the Appellant himself, Kuldeep Kumar who hailed from an alliance between Aam Aadmi Party and the Indian National Congress after which the alliance came in to being when candidates had withdrawn their applications as per earlier orders of the Hon’ble High Court. The second applicant for the post was Manoj Kumar Sonkar,the eighth respondent was a candidate who hailed from Bharatiya Janta Party.Apart from the 35 councillors who were eligible to vote at the election,the Member of the Parliament from the Union Territory of Chandigarh was eligible to vote in the elections, thereby making it 36 voters who were eligible altogether.
6.After the counting of votes, the presiding officer,the seventh respondent,declared the eighth respondent to be victorious with majority of votes, to which the appellant alleged electoral malpractices to have been practiced and the further approached the court.
Issues Raised:
1. That the grounds for the postponement of elections were valid or not.
2. Whether to uphold the presiding officer’s decision to declare the candidate from Bharatiya Janata Party to be victorious in the mayoral elections.
3. Whether to uphold the request of the appellant for re-election on the grounds of tampering in the electoral process.
4. Whether to decide whether the actions of the presiding officer were within his statutory limits or not.
5. Whether the Hon’ble High Court failed to pass an appropriate order for the justice to prevail.
Summary of the proceedings:
1. A writ petition under the ambit of article 226 of the constitution i.e was filed seeking a direction to the Deputy commissioner for ensuring transparency in the following elections and for the appointment procedure of commissioner to be supervised by the Hon’ble High Court.
2. During the appeal, the appellant also submitted that he would be satisfied if the petition was disposed of with the following directions
(a) Accept the withdrawal of candidates for the three aforementioned posts.
(b) Permit the individuals nominated by the candidates contesting the election to observe the proceedings.
(c) Video recording of the entire election process.
3. The respondents agreed to comply with the requests of the appellant and henceforth the petition was disposed of by a division bench of the High Court.
4. On 18th January 2024, the elections did not take place as Shri Anil Masih the presiding officer, taken leave on the grounds of ill health and purported law and order situation in the UT of Chandigarh rescheduling the polls to take place on 6th February,2024 resulting in a fresh round of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court.
5. On 23rd January 2024, the Hon’ble High Court observed that postponement for a the time period of 18 days seemed to be unreasonable with absence of any valid ground to be considered upon.Setting aside this postponement order, the Hon’ble High Court directed that the elections for the aforementioned posts to be conducted at 10 am on 30th January, 2024.To ensure free and fair elections the Hon’ble court further issued directions such as:
(a) The respondents shall conduct the elections and comply with the directions issued by the court.
(b) The councillors who would come in for voting for the aforementioned elections, shall not be accompanied by any supporter or security personal, belonging to any other state.
(c) The Chandigarh police will ensure the safety of the councillors as they will not be accompanied by any security personnel or supporter.
(d) The police shall also make sure that neither any ruckus or an unprecedented event takes place in or around the premises of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation Office while the election is being conducted or after it is conducted.
6. As per the directions, the elections were conducted on the aforementioned date,with the Shri Anil Masih,the seventh respondent, acting as a presiding officer.
7. The results were announced by the seventh respondent,Shri Anil Masih, the presiding officer on 30th January 2024,wherein the result sheet indicated that 36 votes were polled,in which 8 polls were held to invalid.Out of the remaining 28 polls,the appellant,Kuldeep Kumar polled twelve votes and the eighth respondent,Manoj Kumar Sonkarr polled sixteen votes.
8. The presiding officer, announced the eighth respondent as a victory-emerging party in election, in compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court.
9. Alleging malpractices by the seventh respondent/presiding officer during the counting of votes, the Appellant instituted a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
10. A division bench declined to uphold the results of the elections,the proceedings were instituted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court assailing the interim order of the Hon’ble High Court.
11. On 5th February the video recording of counting votes of the electoral process was played in open court, following to which the court passed the following order:
(a) That the returning officer be present before the court in the next hearing, explaining about his conduct which was observed in the video recording.
(b) The entire record relating to the mayoral election poll process of the U.T of Chandigarh to be duly secluded under the custody of the Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which includes:
- Video recording of the entire electoral procedure.
- Ballot papers
- All the other materials in the custody of Shri Anil Masih,the seventh respondent.
12. On 19th January when the proceeding was scheduled again, the seventh respondent,Shri Anil Masih stood before the court and stated that apart from signing the ballot papers, he put his mark at eight ballot papers during the counting process as they stood to be defaced.A judicial officer was appointed to furnish the ballot papers and video recording of the proceedings at 2pm on 20th February,2024 with special directions for the ensure the security of the evidence.
13. On 20th February the entire video recording of the electoral process was played in open court.
14. The returning officer, Shri Anil Masih was questioned about his actions which were evident in the video to which he stated that he had signed each of the ballot papers, but apart from that he also placed his marks on eight ballot papers during the procedure of counting the votes to which he further contended that the ballot papers were defaced and intention was to highlight them.
15. It was further contended by the appellant that the eight ballot papers which were marked by the presiding officer which were originally casted in the favour of the appellant were declared invalid by the presiding officer.
Judgement:
1. As per the observations made by the court, it was clearly evident from the record that the presiding officer marked the ballot papers which were specifically casted in favour of the Appellant and evidently put his own mark in the bottom halfs of the ballots to procreate a ground on treating the particular votes to be held invalid.
2. The presiding officer acted beyond his statutory regulation, whose powers are conferred by section 65 of Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, clause (10) of regulation 6, there are mainly three situations when a ballot is held to be invalid:
(a) A voter has voted in the favour of two candidates
(b) If the voter discloses their identity.
(c) Mark on the ballot paper isn’t evident.
3. None of the situations are satisfied in the context of the present case.
4. The conduct of the presiding officer was taken note off at two levels, firstly his act of altering the course of the mayoral elections, secondly for the false patenthood of his solemn statement he made in court despite a warning which was given prior.
5. The court invoked special powers under article 42 of the Indian Constitution as the only informity is found at the stage when the counting votes was recorded by the Presiding Officer, henceforth the court was duty bound to ensure that procedure of democracy was not obstructed due to such incidents and to ensure absolute justice under the ambit of article 142 of the Indian Constitution.
6. The court also observed that permitting the entire election process to be dissolved would lead to destroying the fundamental democratic principles.
7. The court held the appellant,Kuldeep Kumar to be the victorious party in the elections as if not for the tampering of ballot papers, the appellant would have been the winner.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further initiated perjury proceedings against the presiding officer under the ambit of section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also directed the presiding officer to be issued with a show cause notice and to prove and respond as to how he shouldn’t be prosecuted for his act within three weeks to the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Analysis:
In the following case, the bench comprising CJI Dr Dhananjaya.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J. B Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra is a powerful bench of senior judges who were also among the five judges who gave the electoral bond verdict. Talking about article 142 of the Indian Constitution used in the present case has been previously used by the court in the Ayodhya Case to ensure full justice further the court has used this article to intervene in the BCCI affairs as well.One of the unusual detail of this case stands to be the verdict of the Supreme Court that goes beyond the prayer of the aggrieved candidate,Kuldeep Kumar as when the candidate went to Punjab and Haryana High Court, the candidate demanded for a re-election as there was a sense of confidence in party about their victory if elections were conducted again as they had the majority, however since the supreme court put a stay on the new election for Mayor on 5th February, there were three defectors from the Aam Aadmi Party who joined Bharatiya Janata Party, although the elections were held in party symbols, the anti-defection law wasn’t enacted. So, the sixteen total votes for BJP turned out to be 19 votes turning the tables from defeat to victory for the party, contrarily leading a victory to a disastrous defeat for the Aam Aadmi Party in alliance with the Indian National Congress. This came to be a turning point in the unprecedented verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to uphold the results of the elections if not for the tampering of the ballot papers.
Conclusion:
This stakes of significance of this case rose above the sky in the Mayoral election held at Chandigarh because it marked the first ever coalition between the Indian National Congress and Aam Aadmi Party.This was a joint effort by both the parties to challenge BJP and to further test the future possibilities of forming an alliance in the mere future during the Lok Sabha Elections. However, the act of tampering the electoral process committed by the presiding officer,the seventh respondent,Shri Anil Masih not only caused tremendous national distress but the waves of this unlawful act thwarting the ethos of democracy could be felt by the indian counterpart who dealt with concerns raised about India’s electoral process on the United Nations platform , especially by the High Commissioner of United Nations Human Rights Council, Volker Turk to which the Indian Ministry of External Affairs responded to be “unwarranted and do not reflect the reality of the world’s largest democracy. ” However, the Indian Judiciary further upholded the ethos of democracy which the country proudly boasts about.The verdict by the judiciary is said to be a rightful verdict for the aggrieved party ensuring and upholding the principles of justice to the particular individual.
References:
- chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/4999/4999_2024_1_15_50631_Judgement_20-Feb-2024.pdf (SCC official site)
- https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbctv18.com/world/watch-india-counters-un-human-rights-chief-claims-on-country-elections-19198821.htm/amp
- Live Law https://www.livelaw.in › pdf_…PDF 27.02.2024 Gurpreet Singh and….(Punjab and Haryana High Court Proceedings)
This Article is penned down by Krishav Dwivedi, student of Vivekanand Education Society’s College of Law(VESCOL) Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments