Gurminder Singh : At any stage of election, your lordships can go back if their conduct warrants so..

Maninder Singh : The prayer is to set aside the election and for a fresh election, not to declare the petitioner as the winner.

AAP will now target Maninder !!!

Bench starts dictating the order : Section 38 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act 1976 is extended to the UT of Chandigarh. It provides that the Corporation on its first meeting shall elect its Chairperson, known as the Mayor of the Corporation. Section 60(a) and Regulation 6(1) of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulation 1996 provide that the meeting of the election of the Mayor shall be convened by the Divisional Commissioner, who is the prescribed authority, who shall nominate a councillor, who is not a candidate for the election, to preside over the meeting.

Bench : Sri Vinay Pratap Singh IAS, Dy Commissioner of UT Chandigarh, acting in his capacity as the Prescribed Authority, directed the convening of the meeting of the councillors in terms of Section 38 at 11 AM, Jan 18, 2024. Sri Anil Masih, one of the councillors who was not standing for the election, was nominated as the Presiding Authority.

The agenda of the meeting was to conduct the election of Mayor, Sr Dy Mayor and Dy Mayor. The present case relates to the election to the post of Mayor.

A writ petition under Article 226 was instituted by the petitioner in the HC of P&H seeking a direction to the Dy Commissioner to ensure that free and fair election take place to the post of Mayor, Sr Dy Mayor, Dy Mayor of the Corporation and the appointment of a Commissioner under the auspices of the Court to supervise the election process.

During the course of the hearing of the petition, the petitioner submitted that he would be content if a direction was issued to the official respondents to acknowledge the acceptance of withdrawal of the candidature of certain persons for the three electoral posts and with a direction that persons nominated by the contested candidates may be permitted to observe the proceedings.

The petiitoner also sought a direction for video recording of the election process.

In response to the above request, the respondents representing the authorities, inter alia, stated that the entire voting process will be video recorded. It was stated that Chandigarh police will ensure free and fair elections take place. In view of this position, the petition was disposed of by HC.

A fresh round of litigation then took place before the HC since the elections were not conducted on Jan 18, 2024. The election could not take place as the Presiding Officer had taken leave of absence on the ground of ill health.

The elections were rescheduled to take place on Feb 6, 2024. The order postponing the elections was also challenged before the High Court. On 23 Jan, the HC observed that the postponement of the election for 18 days was unreasonable. By judgment dated 24 Jan, the HC directed that there was no valid ground for the postponement of the elections. Consequently, by setting aside the order dated Jan 18, 2024, the HC directed that the elections to the post of Mayor, Sr Dy Mayor, Dy Mayor shall be conducted on 30 Jan 2024.


The program for the elections was notified on Jan 26, 2024. The election for the post of Mayor was conducted on Jan 30, 2024. Two candidates were in the fray for the post of Mayor.

The petitioner Kuldeep Kumar was candidate set up in an alliance between the AAP and INC. From the submissions before the Court, it appears that the alliance came into being after nominations were filed on Jan 16, after which certain candidates withdrew.


The second candidate, Manoj Kumar Sonkar, 8th respondent, was the candidate set up by the Bhartiya Janata Party. A total of 35 councillors were eligible to vote at the election of Mayor. Apart from which, the Member of Parliament from the UT was eligible to cast vote. Therefore, there were 36 eligible voters.

Bench : Election to the post of Mayor is governed by Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations 1996. Regulation 6 provides for election of the Mayor, including the process of nomination, withdrawal of candidatures and the conduct of the election by secret ballot.

Clauses 9 to 13 of Regulation 6 have a material bearing on the subject matter of the present dispute. The results were announced by Anil Masih, the Presiding Officer, on Jan 30, 2024. The result sheet which tabulated the outcome is reproduced below..

The results sheet indicates that of the 36 votes which were polled, 8 were treated invalid. Of the 28 valid votes which remained, the petitioner holds 12 votes while the 8th Respondent holds 16 votes.

The Presiding Officer declared the results. This led to the institution of a writ petition in PH HC.

A division bench of the HC declined to stay the election and directed that the petition be posted after 3 weeks.

The proceedings before this Court were instituted at that stage.

In pursuance of the orders, the entire election materials were sequestered with the Registrar General of the HC, including ballot papers, video footage. The entire record has been produced today in a sealed condition by a judicial officer.

During the course of the hearing, the video footage was played on Feb 2024. The video footage was played today also in the course of the hearing.

During the course of the video footage, it emerged that Shri Anil Masih, the Presiding Officer, has signed each of the ballot papers. Regulation 6(11) provides that the Presiding Authority shall open the ballot box and initial each ballot paper.

The video footage appeared to indicate that the presiding authority also placed certain marks on some of the ballot papers.

On 19 Feb 2024, the Presiding Authority, who was present before this Court, stated that besides signing the ballot papers he had placed marks on 8 ballot papers and he did so as he found the ballot papers were defaced.

In terms of Regulation 6(9), a councillor can vote for only a candidate. While voting, each member has to place a cross (x) on the right hand side of the ballot paper opposite the candidate whom he wishes to vote for, after which the ballot paper has to be folded and inserted in the ballot box.


Regulation 6(10) states when a ballot paper will be treated as invalid. Clause 10 provides for three eventualities.

First is where a member votes for more candidate than one.

Second eventuality is where the member places any mark on the paper by which he may be identified.

The third eventuality is that if the mark indicating the vote is placed in such a manner making it doubtful as to which candidate the vote has been cast.

The grievance of the petitioner, urged by Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr.Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocates, is that the video footage leaves no manner of doubt that the Presiding Officer, while initialiing the ballot paper, had purported to place an ink mark at the lower half of the ballot and this happened in the case of 8 ballots which were cast in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, it was submitted that a deliberate attempt was made by the Presiding Officer to treat 8 votes cast in favour of the petitioner as invalid to declare the 8th respondent as the elected candidate on the basis that he has secured 16 votes.

It is urged that the 8 votes, which were treated as invalid, were wrongly treated to be so, this being a result of the marks which were put by the Presiding Officer on the 8 ballots which have been cast in favour of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the electoral process has been vitiated by the misconduct of the Presiding Authority.

Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel, for the Presiding Authority, urged that the entire process of election was not only video recorded but all the contesting candidates and their representatives were present in the assembly hall where the counting took place. Rohatgi submitted that apart from intitialling the ballot papers, Mr.Masih had placed certain marks on 8 ballots on the basis of his understanding that these ballots were defaced.

Mr Maninder Singh, for 8th respondent, submitted that the relief which was sought by the petitioner before HC was to set aside the election and to conduct a fresh election. During the pendnecy of this proceeding, the 8th respondent resigned, and hence it was submitted that a fresh election will have to be held in terms of Section 38(3)

Ukraine has the right to demand the return of refugees of military age, said the regional director of the UN Commissioner for Refugees.

Mobilization, he said, is not persecution; Kyiv has every right to carry it out.

Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appeared for the UT.

Regulation 6(9) indicates that at the time of voting, each member has to place a cross on the right hand side of the ballot paper opposite the name of the candidate whom the member wishes to vote. The ballot paper is then folded and placed in the ballot box.

The entire record was produced before the Court. The entirety of dispute turns on 8 ballot papers which were treated to be invalid by the Presiding Officer. All the ballot papers contain the name of the petitioner in the upper half and the name of the 8th respondent in the second half. After the ballots have been cast, the Presiding Officer is required to initial each ballot.

It is evident from the physical inspection of the eight ballots which were treated to be invalid that in each of the ballots the votes were cast by the member in favour of the petitioner.

The Presiding Officer has placed a single line in the bottom half on each of the ballots treated to be invalid.

Yesterday, the Presiding Officer said that he did so because the ballots were defaced. Before recording the statement, we had put him to notice of the consequences of making a false statement.

It is evident that in each of the 8 ballots, that the vote has been duly cast in favour of the petitioner. The Presiding Officer has evidently put his own mark for the purpose of treating the ballot as invalid.

In doing so, the Presiding Officer has acted beyond his remit of statutory regulations.

Clause 10 of Regulation 6 provides for three eventualities where a ballot can be treated as invalid as mentioned above.

There is no dispute that in each of the 8 ballots, the votes are cast in favour of one person. Likewise, there is no mark on the ballot which will indicate that the person who cast the vote will be identified. The third ground, which evinces a situation where the mark is placed in such a manner making it doubtful for which candidate the vote has been cast, evidently do not arise on a plain persual of the ballot. Even if the mark placed by the Presiding Officer is taken into consideration, that mark does not create any doubt on whom the vote is cast.

The ink mark placed by the Presiding Officer at the end of the ballots have no consequence.

The Presiding Officer is guilty of misdemeanour

It is evident that the Presiding Officer has made a deliberate attempt to deface 8 ballots which were cast in favour of the petitioner so that the 8th respondent will be declared as the elected candidate.

Yesterday, the Presiding Officer made a solemn statement before this Court that he had done so as the 8 ballots were defaced. It is evident that none of the ballots are defaced.

The conduct of the Presiding Officer has to be deprecated at two levels. Firstly, he has unlawfully altered the course of Mayoral election. Secondly, in making a solemn statement before this Court on 19 Feb, the Presiding Officer expressed falsehood for which he must be held accountable.

For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the results declared by the Presiding Officer are unlawful and have to be set aside. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY.