Holding

The election result declared by the presiding officer is void because his marking of valid ballots was beyond the statutory grounds for invalidity, and Kuldeep Kumar is declared the duly elected Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation.

Summary

Kuldeep Kumar contested the mayoral election of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation held on 30 January 2024. The presiding officer, Anil Masih, declared the BJP candidate Manoj Kumar Sonkar elected, treating eight ballots cast for the appellant as invalid after marking them with an ink line. Video evidence and physical inspection showed that the marks were placed by the presiding officer after the votes were cast and did not satisfy any of the grounds for invalidity under Regulation 6(10). The Supreme Court held that the presiding officer acted beyond his statutory remit, deliberately defacing valid ballots, and that the result declared was contrary to law. Consequently, the Court quashed the election result, declared Kuldeep Kumar the duly elected Mayor, and ordered a show‑cause notice under Section 340 of the CrPC against the presiding officer. The judgment underscored that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that the Court may invoke Article 142 to do complete justice.

Issues considered

The presiding officer’s marking of ballots constituted a ground for invalidating those votes under Regulation 6(10) of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1996.
Whether the mayoral election result declared by the presiding officer can be set aside on the basis of electoral malpractice.
Whether the Supreme Court may exercise its powers under Article 142 to provide complete justice in this electoral dispute.
Whether a show‑cause notice under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be issued against the presiding officer for making a false statement before the Court.

Legislation cited

Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1996s. Regulation 6
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 340
Constitution of Indias. Article 142, s. Article 329(b)
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976s. 38, s. 60(a), s. 65
Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994

Subjects

ElectionMayorChandigarh Municipal CorporationElectoral malpractices by Presiding OfficerCounting of votesDefacing ballotsFree and fair electionsFundamental democratic principlesBasic structure of the ConstitutionElections at local participatory levelLocal governmentsMunicipal corporationsRepresentative democracyStatement false to the knowledgeComplete justice

Judgment

[2024] 2 S.C.R. 693 : 2024 INSC 129

Kuldeep Kumar
v.
U.T. Chandigarh and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 2874 of 2024)
20 February 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI,*
J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Result of the election to the post of Mayor at the Chandigarh
Municipal Corporation declared by the Presiding Officer in
favour of the eighth respondent, if was contrary to law in view
of the alleged electoral malpractices by him during the counting
of votes.

Headnotes
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 – Punjab Municipal
Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994 –
Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct
of Business) Regulations, 1996 – Regulation 6, Clauses (9)
to (13) – Election to the post of Mayor at the Chandigarh
Municipal Corporation – Alleged electoral malpractices by
the Presiding Officer (Respondent no.7) during the counting
of votes – 36 votes were polled, of which 8 ballot papers
were treated to be invalid by the Presiding Officer – Of the
remaining 28 valid votes, the appellant (candidate of an
alliance between the Aam Aadmi Party and the Indian National
Congress) secured twelve votes, while the eighth respondent
(a candidate of the Bharatiya Janta Party) secured sixteen
votes – Result of the election was declared in favour of the
eighth respondent – Correctness:
Held: It is evident from the physical inspection of the eight ballots
that in each of those cases, the vote was duly cast in favour of
the appellant – The Presiding Officer placed a line in ink by way
of a mark at the bottom half of each of the ballots which were
treated to be invalid – He had evidently put his own aforesaid mark
to create a ground for treating the ballot to have been invalidly
cast – In doing so, the Presiding Officer clearly acted beyond
* Author
694 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the terms of his remit under the statutory regulations – These
regulations have been framed by the Municipal Corporation in
exercise of powers conferred by s.65 of the 1976 Act as extended
to the Union Territory of Chandigarh – Clause (10) of Regulation
6 provides for three eventualities in which a ballot can be treated
as invalid – None of the said eventualities were fulfilled in the
present case – The vote was cast by placing a rubber stamp on
the upper half of the ballot and hence the ink mark which was
placed on the bottom half by the Presiding Officer would be of
no consequence – Presiding Officer made a deliberate effort to
deface the eight ballots cast in favour of the appellant so as to
secure a result at the election by which the eighth respondent
would be declared as the elected candidate – Result which was
declared by the Presiding Officer being contrary to law is quashed
and set aside – Appellant is declared to be the validly elected
candidate for election as Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal
Corporation. [Paras 26-31, 39]
Constitution of India – Article 142 – Exercise of powers under
– Free and fair elections – Election to the post of Mayor at
the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation – Writ petition filed
by the appellant before the High Court alleging electoral
malpractices by the Presiding Officer during the counting
of votes, sought the setting aside of the election process
and for the holding of a fresh election process – High Court
declined to stay the result of the election declared in favour
of the eighth respondent – During the course of proceedings
before this Court, the eighth respondent who was elected
as Mayor tendered his resignation:
Held: It would be inappropriate to set aside the election process
in its entirety when the only infirmity which has been found is
at the stage when the counting of votes was recorded by the
Presiding Officer – Allowing the entire election process to be set
aside would further compound the destruction of fundamental
democratic principles which has taken place as a consequence
of the conduct of the Presiding Officer – Free and fair elections
are a part of the basic structure of the Constitution – Elections
at the local participatory level act as a microcosm of the larger
democratic structure in the country – Local governments,
such as municipal corporations, engage with issues that affect
citizens’ daily lives and act as a primary point of contact with
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 695

Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others

representative democracy – Ensuring a free and fair electoral
process throughout this process, therefore, is imperative to
maintain the legitimacy of and trust in representative democracy
– In such a case, this Court is duty-bound, particularly in the
context of its jurisdiction u/Article 142, to do complete justice to
ensure that the process of electoral democracy is not allowed
to be thwarted by such subterfuges – This Court must step
in in such an exceptional situation to ensure that the basic
mandate of electoral democracy at the local participatory
level is preserved – Pertinently, this is not an ordinary case of
alleged malpractice by candidates in an election, but electoral
misconduct by the presiding officer himself – The brazen nature
of the malpractice, visible on camera, makes the situation all
the more extraordinary, justifying the invocation of the power
of this Court u/Article 142. [Paras 36, 37]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.340 – Exercise of
jurisdiction under – Election to the post of Mayor at the
Chandigarh Municipal Corporation – Alleged electoral
malpractices by the Presiding Officer during the counting
of votes – Presiding Officer signed each of the ballot papers
however, the video footage indicated that he had also placed
certain marks on some of the ballot papers – During the
course of the hearing, the Presiding Officer made a solemn
statement before this Court that he did so because he found
that the ballots had been defaced:
Held: The ballots had not been defaced when the Presiding
Officer put his mark at the bottom – The ballots left no manner
of doubt about the candidate for whom the ballot was cast –
Presiding Officer is guilty of a serious misdemeanour in doing
what he did in his role and capacity as Presiding Officer – A fit
and proper case is made out for invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court u/s.340 in respect of the conduct of the Presiding Officer
– In the order dated 19.02.2024, the statement made by the
Presiding Officer was recorded when he appeared personally
before this Court – As Presiding Officer, he could not have been
unmindful of the consequences of making a statement which,
prima facie, appears to be false to his knowledge in the course
of judicial proceedings – Notice to be issued to show cause to
the Presiding Officer, as to why steps should not be initiated
against him u/s.340. [Paras 30, 40]
696 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Case Law Cited
Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu and Ors., [1992] 1 SCR 686 :
AIR 1993 SC 412; Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain,
[1976] 2 SCR 347 : (1975) Supp SCC 1; Mohinder
Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, [1978] 2
SCR 272 : (1978) 1 SCC 405 – followed.

List of Acts
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976; Punjab Municipal Corporation
Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994; Chandigarh Municipal
Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1996;
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Election; Mayor; Chandigarh Municipal Corporation; Electoral
malpractices by Presiding Officer; Counting of votes; Defacing
ballots; Free and fair elections; Fundamental democratic principles;
Basic structure of the Constitution; Elections at local participatory
level; Local governments, Municipal corporations; Representative
democracy; Statement false to the knowledge; Complete justice.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2874 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2024 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.2169 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advs., Shadan
Farasat, Talha Abdul Rahman, Amit Bhandari, Siddharth Seem,
Abhishek Babbar, Harshit Anand, M. Shaz Khan, Adnan Yousuf,
Ramanpreet Bara, Ferry Sofat, R.P.S. Bara, Karamanbir Singh,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Tushar Mehta, SG., Maninder Singh, Mukul Rohatgi, Adundhamauli
Prasad, Sr. Advs., Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal,
Prateek Gupta, Varun Chugh, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Ms. Manya
Hasija, Tejasvi Gupta, Pawan Upadhyay, T. Illayarasu, Ms. Ashita
Chawla, Ajay Sabharwal, Rangasaran Mohan, Amarpal Singh Dua,
Raghunatha Sethupathy B., Mutu Thangadurai, Ms. Misha Rohatgi,
Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 697

Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from an interim order of a Division Bench
of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana1 dated 31 January 2024.
The order impugned originates in a writ petition alleging electoral
malpractices by the presiding officer who conducted the election to
the post of Mayor at the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation. The High
Court issued notice and listed the petition after three weeks, but it
declined to stay the result of the election or grant any other interim
relief. The appellant approached this Court assailing the Order and
raised serious allegations about the sanctity of the election. With
the course the proceedings have taken, this judgment will result in
a final order on the writ petition before the High Court.
3. Section 38 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act 19762, extended
to the Union Territory of Chandigarh by the Punjab Municipal
Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act 19943, provides
that the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation shall, at its first meeting
in each year, elect one of its elected members to be the Mayor of
the Corporation. Section 60(a) of the Act provides that the meeting
for the election of the Mayor shall be convened by the ‘Divisional
Commissioner’, who shall nominate a councillor who is not a candidate
for the election, to preside over the meeting. Similarly, Regulation 6(1)
of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct
of Business) Regulations 19964 provides that a meeting for the
election of a Mayor shall be convened by the ‘prescribed authority’
who shall nominate a Councillor who is not a candidate to preside
over the meeting. The Deputy Commissioner of the Union Territory
of Chandigarh has been designated as Presiding Authority for this
purpose by a Notification dated 4 October 1994.

1 “High Court”
2 “Act”
3 Act No 45 of 1994
4 “Regulations”
698 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

4. On 10 January 2024, Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, IAS, Deputy
Commissioner, Union Territory of Chandigarh acting in his capacity as
the Prescribed Authority directed the convening of a meeting of the
Councillors in terms of Section 38 of the Act at 11 am on 18 January
2024. The seventh respondent, Shri Anil Masih, one of the councillors
who was not standing for the mayor election was nominated as the
presiding authority. The agenda of the meeting was to conduct the
election of Mayor, Senior Deputy Mayor, and Deputy Mayor of the
Corporation and the elected Councillors desirous of contesting the
election were called upon to file their nominations for the posts.
5. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was instituted by
the appellant in the High Court seeking a direction to the Deputy
Commissioner to ensure that free and fair elections take place for
the posts of Mayor, Senior Deputy Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the
Municipal Corporation which were scheduled to be held on 18 January
2024 and for the appointment of a commissioner under the auspices
of the High Court to supervise the election process.
6. During the course of hearing the appeal, the appellant submitted that
he would be content if the petition was disposed of with directions
to the official respondents to (a) acknowledge the acceptance of
the withdrawal of the candidature of certain individuals for the three
electoral posts; (b) permit persons nominated by the contested
candidates to observe the proceedings of the elections; and (c) video
record the entire election process.
7. In response to the above submission, it was stated on behalf of
the respondents representing the various authorities, inter alia, that
the entire voting and election process would be video recorded.
Likewise, it was stated that the Chandigarh police would ensure that
free and fair elections take place. In view of the position adopted by
the authorities, by an Order dated 17 January 2024 (a day before
the proposed election), the petition was disposed of by a Division
Bench of the High Court.
8. Elections were not conducted on 18 January 2024, resulting in a
fresh round of litigation before the High Court. The order dated 18
January 2024 postponing the elections and rescheduling them to 6
February 2024 was challenged before the High Court. The election
allegedly could not take place as Shri Anil Masih, the presiding officer,
had taken leave of absence on the ground of ill health and due to
the purported ‘law and order’ situation in Chandigarh.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 699

Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others

9. On 23 January 2024, the High Court observed that the postponement
of the elections for a period of eighteen days was unreasonable.
By its judgment dated 24 January 2024, the High Court held that
there was no valid ground for the postponement of the elections.
Consequently, while setting aside the postponement order dated 18
January 2024, the High Court directed that the elections to the posts
of Mayor, Senior Deputy Mayor and Deputy Mayor be conducted
at 10 am on 30 January 2024. The High Court also issued other
directions to ensure free and fair elections, as set out below:
"i) The respondents-authorities shall conduct the
elections to the posts of Mayor; Senior Deputy Mayor
and Deputy Mayor of the Municipal Corporation,
Chandigarh, on 30.01.2024 at 10 a.m. at the
scheduled place as indicated in the order dated
10.01.2024 (Annexure P.1 in CWP-1350-2024).
ii) The Prescribed Authority, shall ensure that the
scheduled elections, are held under the Presiding
Officer, as may be nominated by the said Authority.
The official respondents shall remain bound by their
statements made before the Coordinate Bench of this
Court on 17.01.2024 in CWP-1201-2024, to ensure
conduct of free and fair elections.
iii) The Councillors, who would come for voting in the
aforesaid elections, shall not be accompanied by any
supporters or by the security personnel belonging to
any other State.
iv) The Chandigarh Police, shall ensure to provide
adequate security to the Councillors, who would
come for voting, in view of the fact that they will not
be accompanied by any security personnel belonging
to any other State.
v) The Chandigarh Police shall also ensure that neither
any rukus nor any untoward incident takes place in
or around the premises of the Chandigarh Municipal
Corporation Office, prior to, during or after the election
process.”
10. Pursuant to the above litigation before the High Court, the programme
for the elections was notified on 26 January 2024. The election for
700 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the post of Mayor was conducted on 30 January 2024 with Shri Anil
Masih, the seventh respondent, acting as the Presiding Officer. Two
candidates were in the fray for the post of Mayor. The appellant ,
Kuldeep Kumar, was a candidate fielded by an alliance between
the Aam Aadmi Party and the Indian National Congress. From the
submissions before the Court, it appears that the alliance came into
being after nominations were filed on 16 January 2024, after which
certain candidates had withdrawn their nominations, as recorded by
the High Court in one of its earlier orders. The second candidate,
Manoj Kumar Sonkar, the eighth respondent was a candidate set up
by the Bharatiya Janta Party. Thirty-five councillors were eligible to
vote at the election of the Mayor apart from which, the Member of
Parliament from the Union Territory of Chandigarh was also eligible
to cast a vote at the election. There were therefore thirty-six eligible
voters for the election.
11. The results were announced by the Presiding Officer on 30 January
2024. The result sheet which tabulated the outcome is reproduced
below:

“MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHANDIGARH
ELECTION OF MAYOR
RESULT SHEET
Sr. No. Name of the Councillors Vote Polled
1. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar 12
2. Sh. Manoj Kumar 16
NUMBER OF VALID VOTES POLLED: 28
NUMBER OF INVALID VOTES POLLED: 08
TOTAL VOTES POLLED: 36

SIGNATURE OF PRESIDING OFFICER
I, Anil Masih, Presiding Officer, declare Sh. Manoj Kumar having
been elected as Mayor, Municipal Corporation Chandigarh for the
year 2024.

Dated: 30.01.2024 PRESIDING OFFICER”
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 701

Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others

12. The result sheet indicates that thirty-six votes were polled, of which
eight were treated to be invalid. Of the twenty-eight valid votes
which remained, the appellant polled twelve votes, while the eighth
respondent polled sixteen votes. The Presiding Officer declared the
result of the election in favour of the eighth respondent. As directed
by the High Court, the election process, including the counting of
votes was video recorded.
13. Alleging electoral malpractices by the presiding officer/seventh
respondent during the counting of votes, the appellant instituted a
writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. A Division
Bench of the High Court declined to stay the result of the election
and directed that the petition be posted after three weeks. The
proceedings before this Court were instituted at this stage assailing
the interim order of the High Court.
14. On 5 February 2024, the video recording of the counting process
was played in open court. This Court passed the following order:
"1. Issue notice.
2. Pursuant to the interim order of the High Court in an
earlier writ petition, the proceedings for conducting
the election to the Post of Mayor of the Chandigarh
Municipal Corporation were videographed. During
the course of the hearing, the video has been played
in Court.
3. The Returning Officer shall remain present before
this Court on the next date of listing to explain his
conduct as it appears in the video.
4. Prima facie, at this stage, we are of the considered
view that an appropriate interim order was warranted,
which the High Court has failed to pass, in order
to protect the purity and sanctity of the electoral
process.
5. We direct that the entire record pertaining to the
election of the Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal
Corporation shall be sequestered under the custody
of the Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana. This shall include:
702 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(i) The ballot papers;
(ii) Videography of the entire electoral process; and
(iii) All other material in the custody of the Returning
Officer.
6. This exercise shall be carried out forthwith by 5 pm
this evening.
7. Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appearing
on behalf of the Returning Officer, states that the
Returning Officer has handed over the entire record
in a sealed format to the Deputy Commissioner, UT
Chandigarh on 30 January 2024.
8. The Deputy Commissioner, UT Chandigarh, shall
comply with the above direction by handing over the
entirety of the record to the Registrar General of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana for safe keeping
and custody.
9. The ensuing meeting of the Chandigarh Municipal
Corporation, which is to take place on 7 February
2024, shall stand deferred, pending further orders
of this Court.
10. List the Special Leave Petition on 19 February 2024.”
15. On 19 February 2024, when the proceedings were listed before this
Court again, the following order was passed:
"1. Mr Gurminder Singh, senior counsel apprised the
Court that in pursuance of the interim order dated
05 February 2024, the ballot papers have been
sequestered under the custody of the Registrar
General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
on 05 February 2024.
2. During the course of the hearing, the Returning
Officer Mr Anil Masih is present before this Court.
Responding to a query of the Court, Mr Masih stated
that he had, besides signing the ballot papers, put
his mark at eight ballot papers during the course of
the counting of the votes. He states that he did so
as he found that the ballot papers were defaced.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 703

Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others

3. We direct that the ballot papers which have been
placed in the custody of the Registrar General be
produced before this Court at 2.00 pm on 20 February
2024 by a judicial officer to be nominated by the
Registrar General for the purpose of transporting the
ballot papers to this Court.
4. Proper security arrangements shall be made to ensure
the safe transit of the judicial officer nominated by
the Registrar General in pursuance of this Order.
Arrangements shall also be made to secure proper
preservation and custody of the ballot papers with
the judicial officer.
5. The judicial officer shall also produce the entire video
of the counting of the votes before the Returning
Officer which took place on 30 January 2024.
6. List the Special Leave Petition at 2.00 pm on 20
February 2024.”
16. In pursuance of the above directions, the entire record pertaining to
the election of the Mayor was sequestered under the custody of the
Registrar General of the High Court, including (i) the ballot papers;
(ii) the video footage of the electoral process; and (iii) all material in
the custody of the Returning Officer/Presiding Officer. Pursuant to the
order dated 19 February 2024, the entire record has been produced
before this Court in sealed and secure custody by Shri Varun Nagpal,
OSD (Litigation) of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.
17. On 5 February 2024, during the course of the hearing, parts of the
video footage recorded in pursuance of the order of the High Court
were played before this Court. The entire video footage has been
produced before the Court pursuant to order dated 19 February 2024
and played on the open screens during the hearing.
18. Elections to the post of Mayor are governed by the provisions of
the 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 a secret ballot.
Clauses (9) to (13) of Regulation 6 have a material bearing on the
subject matter of the present dispute and serve as a yardstick to
704 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

test the actions of the Presiding Officer/seventh respondent. The
relevant provisions are reproduced below:
"(9) No member shall vote for more than one candidate.
At the time of voting, each member shall place a
cross (X) on the right hand side of the ballot paper
opposite the name of the candidate for whom the
(sic) wishes to vote, and will then fold the ballot
paper and without showing the front of the paper to
any person, insert the same in the ballot box in the
presence of the presiding authority.
(10) lf a member votes for more candidates than one or
places any mark on the paper by which he may be
identified, his ballot paper shall be considered invalid
and will not be counted. A vote recorded on a ballot
paper used at the meeting shall be rejected if the
marks indicating the vote is placed on the ballot
paper in such a manner as to make it doubtful to
which candidate the vote has been given.
(11) As soon as the period fixed for casting of votes is
over, the presiding authority shall open the ballot box
and initial each ballot paper.
(12) The votes for all the candidates shall then be counted
by the presiding authority with the assistance of the
Municipal officials or employees as may be designated
by the presiding authority and the candidates shall
be arranged in the order of the number of votes
obtained by each of them.
(13) If there are only two candidates, then the one who
gets the larger number of votes shall be declared
elected.”
19. In terms of Regulation 6(9), a councillor can vote for only one
candidate. While voting, each member has to place a cross (X) on
the right-hand side of the ballot paper opposite the name of the
candidate for whom he wishes to vote, after which the ballot paper
has to be folded and inserted in the ballot box in the presence of the
Presiding Officer. Regulation 6(10) stipulates when the ballot paper
would be treated as invalid and provides for three eventualities.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 705

Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others

The first is where a member votes for more candidates than one.
The second eventuality is where the member places any mark on
the paper by which he may be identified. The third eventuality is if
the mark indicating the vote is placed on the ballot paper in such
a manner as to make it doubtful for which candidate the vote has
been cast. Finally, Regulation 6(11) provides that as soon as the
period fixed for casting of the votes is over, the presiding authority
shall open the ballot box and initial each ballot paper.
20. From the record, it emerges that Shri Anil Masih, the Presiding Officer
had signed each of the ballot papers. However, the video footage
appears to indicate that he had also placed certain marks on some
of the ballot papers. This was corroborated on 19 February 2024,
when Shri Anil Masih, the Presiding authority/seventh respondent,
who was present before this Court, stated that besides signing the
ballot papers, he had placed his mark on eight ballot papers during
the counting of the votes. He stated that he did so as he found that
the ballot papers were defaced and sought to highlight them.
21. The grievance of the appellant, urged before this Court by Dr Abhishek
Manu Singhvi and Mr Gurminder Singh, senior counsel is that the
video footage leaves no manner of doubt that the Presiding Officer
while initialing the ballot papers placed an ink mark on the lower
half of eight ballot papers, all of which were cast in favour of the
appellant. It has been urged that the votes were treated as invalid
only as a result of the marks which were put by the Presiding Officer.
Consequently, it has been submitted that a deliberate effort was
made by the Presiding Officer to treat eight of the votes which were
cast in favour of the appellant as invalid and to declare the eighth
respondent as the elected candidate on the basis that he had secured
sixteen votes. Hence, it has been submitted that the electoral process
has been vitiated by the misconduct of the presiding authority, as
a consequence of which the democratic process leading up to the
election of the Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation has
been seriously impaired.
22. Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel appeared on behalf of the Presiding
Officer/seventh respondent and urged that the entire process of
the election was not only video recorded but both the contesting
candidates and their representatives were present in the assembly
hall where the counting took place. Mr Rohatgi further submitted that
706 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

apart from initialing the ballot papers, the Presiding Officer placed
certain marks in the bottom half of the eight ballots which were
treated as invalid based on his assessment that these ballots had
already been defaced.
23. Mr Maninder Singh, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the eighth
respondent submitted that the relief sought by the appellant in the
underlying writ petition before the High Court is for setting aside
the result of the election and for the conduct of a fresh election.
During the pendency of these proceedings, the eighth respondent
has tendered his resignation and hence, it has been submitted that
a fresh election would have to be held in terms of the provisions of
Section 38(3) of the Act.
24. Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appeared for the Union Territory
of Chandigarh and clarified that he is not representing the Presiding
Officer/seventh respondent in these proceedings.
25. As stated above, Regulation 6(9) indicates that at the time of voting,
each member shall place a cross (X) on the right-hand side of the
ballot paper opposite the name of the candidate for whom the member
wishes to vote. The ballot paper is then folded and placed in the
ballot box. The entire record (including the ballots in question) has
been produced before this Court in secure custody.
26. The entirety of the dispute turns on the eight ballot papers which were
treated to be invalid by the Presiding Officer. We have perused the
ballot papers in question. All the ballot papers contain the name of the
appellant in the upper half and the name of the eighth respondent in
the lower half. Below the names of the candidates is the signature of
the Presiding Officer. After the ballots are cast, the Presiding Officer
is required to initial each ballot in terms of Regulation 6(11). Each of
the ballot papers bears two signatures of the Presiding Officer. It is
evident from the physical inspection of the eight ballots which were
treated to be invalid that in each of those cases, the vote was cast
by the member in favour of the appellant. The Presiding Officer has
placed a line in ink by way of a mark at the bottom half of each of
the ballots which have been treated to be invalid. During the course
of the hearing yesterday, the Presiding Officer informed this Court
that he did so because he found that the ballots had been defaced.
Before recording the statement of the Presiding Officer in the above
terms, we had placed him on notice of the serious consequences
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 707

Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others

which are liable to ensue if he was found to have made a statement
before this Court which was incorrect.
27. The eight ballots which have been perused before the Court have also
been perused by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
and for the successful candidate among others. It is evident that in
each of the eight ballots, the vote had been duly cast in favour of
the appellant. Further, the Presiding Officer has evidently put his
own mark on the bottom half of the ballots to create a ground for
treating the ballot to have been invalidly cast.
28. In doing so, the Presiding Officer has clearly acted beyond the terms
of his remit under the statutory regulations. These regulations have
been framed by the Municipal Corporation in exercise of powers
conferred by Section 65 of the Act as extended to the Union Territory
of Chandigarh. Clause (10) of Regulation 6 provides for three
eventualities, as already noticed earlier, in which a ballot can be
treated as invalid, namely:
(i) Where a member has voted for more than one candidate;
(ii) Where a member places any mark on the paper by which he
may be identified; and
(iii) If the mark indicating the vote is placed on the ballot paper in
such a manner as to make it doubtful over which candidate
the vote has been cast.
29. None of the above eventualities are fulfilled in the present case.
30. There is absolutely no dispute about the factual position that in each
of the eight ballots the vote was cast for one person which is evident
from the rubber stamp appearing on the upper half of the ballot in
each of those cases. Likewise, there is no mark on the ballot which
would indicate that the person who cast the vote would be identified.
The third ground which evinces a situation where the mark is placed
in such a manner so as to make it doubtful for which candidate the
vote has been cast would not arise on a plain perusal of the ballots.
Even if the mark which was placed by the Presiding Officer is taken
into consideration, that mark does not create any doubt about the
candidate in favour of whom the vote was cast. The vote was cast
by placing a rubber stamp on the upper half of the ballot and hence
the ink mark which was placed on the bottom half by the Presiding
Officer would be of no consequence. The ballots had not been
708 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

defaced when the Presiding Officer put his mark at the bottom. The
ballots left no manner of doubt about the candidate for whom the
ballot was cast. But that apart, it is evident that the Presiding Officer
is guilty of a serious misdemeanour in doing what he did in his role
and capacity as Presiding Officer.
31. As stated above, Regulation 6(1) requires the nomination of a
councillor who is not a candidate at the election to preside over the
meeting. This provision has been made to ensure that the person
who acts as Presiding Officer would do so with objectivity. It is evident
that the Presiding Officer in the present case has made a deliberate
effort to deface the eight ballots which were cast in favour of the
appellant so as to secure a result at the election by which the eighth
respondent would be declared as the elected candidate.
32. Before this Court yesterday, the Presiding Officer made a solemn
statement that he had done so because he found that each of the
eight ballots was defaced. It is evident that none of the ballots had
been defaced. As a matter of fact, it is also material to note that after
the votes are cast, the ballot is folded in a vertical manner to ensure
that if the ink on the rubber stamp appears on the corresponding half
of the ballot it will appear alongside the name of the candidate for
whom the vote has been cast. The conduct of the Presiding Officer
must be deprecated at two levels. Firstly, by his conduct, he has
unlawfully altered the course of the Mayor’s election. Secondly, in
making a solemn statement before this Court on 19 February 2024,
the Presiding Officer has expressed a patent falsehood, despite a
prior warning, for which he must be held accountable.
33. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that the
result, which was declared by Shri Anil Masih, the Presiding Officer
is plainly contrary to law and would have to be set aside. We order
accordingly.
34. During the course of these proceedings, the eighth respondent who
was elected as Mayor has tendered his resignation. Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the eighth respondent has adverted to the
provisions of Section 38(3) in terms of which on the occurrence of any
casual vacancy, inter alia, in the office of the Mayor, the Corporation
is required within a month of the occurrence of the vacancy to elect
one of its members as Mayor to hold office for the remainder of the
term of office of the predecessor.
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 709

Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others

35. In the underlying writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High
Court, the appellant had, inter alia, sought the setting aside of the
election process and for the holding of a fresh election process and
consequential reliefs. However, we are of the considered view that it
would be inappropriate to set aside the election process in its entirety
when the only infirmity which has been found is at the stage when
the counting of votes was recorded by the Presiding Officer. Allowing
the entire election process to be set aside would further compound
the destruction of fundamental democratic principles which has taken
place as a consequence of the conduct of the Presiding Officer.
36. This Court has consistently held that free and fair elections are a
part of the basic structure of the Constitution.5 Elections at the local
participatory level act as a microcosm of the larger democratic
structure in the country. Local governments, such as municipal
corporations, engage with issues that affect citizens’ daily lives and
act as a primary point of contact with representative democracy. The
process of citizens electing councillors, who in turn, elect the Mayor,
serves as a channel for ordinary citizens to ventilate their grievances
through their representatives – both directly and indirectly elected.
Ensuring a free and fair electoral process throughout this process,
therefore, is imperative to maintain the legitimacy of and trust in
representative democracy.
37. We are of the considered view that in such a case, this Court is
duty-bound, particularly in the context of its jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution, to do complete justice to ensure that the
process of electoral democracy is not allowed to be thwarted by such
subterfuges. Allowing such a state of affairs to take place would be
destructive of the most valued principles on which the entire edifice
of democracy in our country depends. We are, therefore, of the
view that this Court must step in in such an exceptional situation to
ensure that the basic mandate of electoral democracy at the local
participatory level is preserved. Pertinently, this is not an ordinary
case of alleged malpractice by candidates in an election, but electoral
misconduct by the presiding officer himself. The brazen nature of
the malpractice, visible on camera, makes the situation all the more

5 Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu and Ors., [1992] 1 SCR 686 : AIR 1993 SC 412; Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj
Narain, [1976] 2 SCR 347 : 1975 Supp SCC 1.
710 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

extraordinary, justifying the invocation of the power of this Court
under Article 142.
38. From the result sheet, which has been reproduced in para 11, it has
emerged that while the appellant is reflected to have polled twelve
votes, eight votes cast in favour of the appellant were treated as
invalid. As detailed above, each of those eight invalid votes was in
fact validly cast in favour of the appellant. Adding the eight invalid
votes to the twelve votes which the Presiding Officer recorded to
have been polled by the appellant would make his tally twenty votes.
The eighth respondent, on the other hand, has polled sixteen votes.
39. We accordingly order and direct that the result of the election as
declared by the Presiding Officer shall stand quashed and set
aside. The appellant, Kuldeep Kumar, is declared to be the validly
elected candidate for election as Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal
Corporation.
40. Further, we are of the considered view that a fit and proper case is
made out for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 340
of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in respect of the conduct
of Shri Anil Masih, the Presiding Officer. In paragraph 2 of the order
dated 19 February 2024, we have recorded the statement which was
made by the Presiding Officer when he appeared personally before
this Court. As Presiding Officer, Shri Anil Masih could not have been
unmindful of the consequences of making a statement which, prima
facie, appears to be false to his knowledge in the course of judicial
proceedings.
41. The Registrar (Judicial) is accordingly directed to issue a notice
to show cause to Shri Anil Masih of the Chandigarh Municipal
Corporation who was the Presiding Officer at the election which took
place on 30 January 2024, as to why steps should not be initiated
against him under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973. The notice shall be made returnable on 15 March 2024.
42. Shri Anil Masih shall have an opportunity to file his response to
the notice to be issued in pursuance of the above directions in the
meantime.
43. The ballots and the video footage which were unsealed for the
perusal of the Court shall be sealed again and returned to the OSD
(Litigation) of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for safekeeping
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 711

Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others

before the Registrar General of the High Court. This shall be subject
to further orders of the competent court.
44. The other elections which are required to be held in terms of the
regulations shall now take place in accordance with law, save and
except for the election of the Mayor which has been resolved by the
final directions which have been issued herein-above.
45. Before concluding, we echo the observations by Justice VR Krishna
Iyer, (speaking for himself, Beg, CJ and Bhagwati, J) in Mohinder
Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner.,6 albeit in a different
context of the powers of the Election Commission of India and
the parameters of Article 329(b) of the Constitution, pertaining to
elections to the Houses of Parliament and the State Legislatures.
Justice Krishna Iyer observed:
"2. Every significant case has an unwritten legend and
indelible lesson. This appeal is no exception, whatever
its formal result. The message, as we will see at
the end of the decision, relates to the pervasive
philosophy of democratic elections which Sir Winston
Churchill vivified in matchless, words:
“At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is
the little man, walking into a little booth, with a
little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit
of paper — no amount of rhetoric or voluminous
discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming
importance of the point.”
If we may add, the little, large Indian shall not be
hijacked from the course of free and fair elections
by mob muscle methods, or subtle perversion of
discretion by men “dressed in little, brief authority”.
For “be you ever so high, the law is above you”.
(emphasis supplied)
In order to maintain the purity of the electoral process, the “little cross”
on the “little bit of paper” must be made only by the metaphorical
“little man” walking into the “little booth” and no one else.

6 [1978] 2 SCR 272 : (1978) 1 SCC 405
712 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

46. The writ petition before the High Court shall stand disposed of in
terms of the above directions.
47. List the Civil Appeal on 15 March 2024 for considering the response
of the seventh respondent to the notice which has been directed to
be issued to him.

Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Result of the case:
Directions issued.