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.

During the course of proceedings, the 8th respondent resigned. The senior counsel on behalf of 8th respondent submitted as per provisions, there has to be fresh election. In the writ petition which was instituted before the PH HC, the petitioner, had inter alia, sought the setting aside of election process and for the holding of the fresh election process afresh and consequential reliefs.

The setting aside of the election process is a wider relief. We are of the view that setting aside the entire election process is inappropriate as the only infirmity is found in the counting process.

Setting aside the entire election process will compound the destruction of the democratic principles which happened due to the conduct of the Presiding Officer.

This Court is duty bound to ensure that the democratic process is not set at naught by such subterfuges. We are therefore of the view that the Court must step in such exceptional circumstances to ensure that the basic democratic mandate is ensured.

From the result sheet, while the petitioner got 12 votes, the 8 votes which were treated as invalid wrongly, were validly passed in favour of the petitioner. Adding the 8 votes would make his tally 20 votes. The 8th respondent on the other hand polled 16 votes.

SC - A fit case is made out for the initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against Anil Masih. Registrar Judicial is directed to issue a notice to Anil Masih, to show cause as to why steps should not be initiated against him under Section 340 CrPC.

Aaj Kya Naya Speech du....
Assembly meh toh sab bol hi Diya tha..

Heavy machinery and enforced bunker/s moving towards Shambhu border by protestors from AAP ruled punjab state as the Delhi chalo march resumes tomorrow.

How can the state govt allow this? This cannot be prepared overnight!

https://twitter.com/MeghUpdates/status/1759898543735873631

This despite Punjab and Haryana High Court's today's order directing protesting farmers to refrain from using tractors and JCBs for Delhi travel, citing Motor Vehicle Act limitations. Suggests opting for buses and asked AAP Govt of Punjab to control large gatherings at state borders