KULDEEP KUMAR vs U.T. CHANDIGARH, 2024

KULDEEP KUMAR vs U.T. CHANDIGARH, 2024

Case Title and Citation

The case is Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh. It was decided on February 20, 2024, and the citation is 2024 INSC 129. The judgment was authored by Chief Justice (Dr.) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, alongside Justice Jamshed B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.

Factual Background

The Chandigarh Municipal Corporation held an election for the post of Mayor on January 30, 2024, as required by Section 38 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. Mr. Anil Masih, a councillor who was not a candidate, was nominated as the Presiding Officer to oversee the meeting. Two candidates were contesting: Kuldeep Kumar (Appellant), jointly fielded by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Indian National Congress (INC); and Manoj Sonkar (Respondent), set up by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). There were thirty-six eligible voters.

The election result sheet, signed by the Presiding Officer Anil Masih, indicated that eight votes were declared invalid, Kuldeep Kumar received twelve votes, and Manoj Sonkar received sixteen votes. Based on this tabulation, Anil Masih declared Manoj Sonkar elected as Mayor.

Kuldeep Kumar immediately approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging the result and alleging electoral malpractices during the counting. The High Court, however, declined to stay the election result in its interim order, leading the Appellant to challenge the interim order before the Supreme Court. The entire voting and counting process had been video-recorded, which was agreed upon by the parties to ensure a fair election.

Issue(s)

1. Whether electoral malpractice occurred in the conduct of the election for the Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation on January 30, 2024, specifically regarding the invalidation of eight ballot papers.
2. Whether the Supreme Court should invoke its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to rectify the election result, particularly since the elected Mayor (Manoj Sonkar) had resigned during the proceedings.
3. Whether proceedings should be initiated against the Presiding Officer, Anil Masih, for making a false statement before the Court regarding the defacement of the ballot papers.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside the result of the election as declared by the Presiding Officer. Invoking its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice and preserve electoral democracy, the Court declared the Appellant, Kuldeep Kumar, as the validly elected Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation, having secured twenty valid votes.

Furthermore, the Court directed the Supreme Court Registry to issue a show cause notice to the Presiding Officer, Anil Masih, to explain why proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), should not be instituted against him for making a false statement before the Court.

Reason for the Decision

The Supreme Court based its decision on the patent misconduct of the Presiding Officer and the resulting destruction of democratic principles:

1. Deliberate Defacement of Ballots: The Court physically examined the eight ballots declared invalid and reviewed the video recording. It was found that all eight ballots were cast in favor of the Appellant, Kuldeep Kumar. The Presiding Officer, Anil Masih, had deliberately placed his own mark (a line in ink) on the bottom half of these eight ballots to create a false pretext for invalidating them.
2. Violation of Regulations: The Presiding Officer acted beyond his authority, as the eight ballots did not meet any of the three conditions for invalidity specified under Regulation 6(10) of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation Regulations (e.g., voting for more than one candidate, placing an identifying mark, or doubtful vote placement).
3. Restoration of Democratic Mandate via Article 142: While the elected Mayor had resigned, the Court found it inappropriate to order a fresh election when the only infirmity was at the counting stage by the Presiding Officer. Recognizing that free and fair elections form part of the basic structure of the Constitution, the Court used its power under Article 142 to rectify the result immediately. By adding the eight invalid votes to the Appellant’s original twelve votes, the Court determined that Kuldeep Kumar had secured twenty votes, making him the rightful winner over the Respondent’s sixteen votes.
4. False Statement Under Oath: The Court found that the Presiding Officer had made a patent falsehood before the Court by claiming he put the marks because the ballots were already defaced. The video evidence proved this statement to be knowingly false, justifying the initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruled that the conduct of the Presiding Officer amounted to a serious misdemeanour and unlawfully altered the election outcome, which justified the invocation of Article 142. The declaration of Manoj Sonkar as Mayor was quashed, and the Appellant, Kuldeep Kumar, was declared the legitimate Mayor. The Court emphasized that the “little cross” made by the voter must not be hijacked by the subtle perversion of discretion by those in authority, underlining the paramount importance of maintaining the purity of the electoral process. The Presiding Officer was ordered to face legal scrutiny for his misconduct and false testimony.