Anil Masih told that the purpose of the marks was to differentiate the distorted ballot papers.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court will today examine the video recording of the ballot papers and counting process of the Chandigarh mayor election amid concerns over “horse-trading” and the controversial victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
BJP’s Manoj Sonkar won the election with 16 votes, defeating Aam Aadmi Party-Congress alliance candidate Kuldeep Kumar, who got 12 votes. However, controversy arose when Returning Officer Anil Masih declared eight votes of alliance partners invalid, leading to allegations of ballot tampering. A video went viral in which BJP’s minority cell member Shri Masih was shown marking ballot papers cast for AAP councillors. During a hearing on 5 February, the Supreme Court condemned his actions, calling them a “mockery of democracy”.
A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra expressed deep concern over the alleged “horse-trading” and decided to examine the ballot papers and video recording of the counting process. Instead of ordering fresh elections immediately, the court suggested considering declaring the results on the basis of votes already cast.
The court also summoned the Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court to produce records in New Delhi today.
‘serious matter’
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Chandigarh administration, raised the idea of holding fresh elections under the supervision of a judicial officer appointed by the High Court. However, after deliberations, the bench moved to stage the completion of the electoral process before the declaration of results. The court suggested nominating a judicial officer to monitor the counting of ballot papers and not to notice any distortion by the returning officer.
Attention then turned to Anil Masih, who was accused of tampering with the ballot papers. For the first time in the history of independent India, the Chief Justice cross-examined the Returning Officer, expressing displeasure at the manner in which the elections were conducted. The court called it a serious violation of the democratic process and strongly warned Masih about possible prosecution for his actions.
“Mr. Masih, I am asking you questions. If you do not give truthful answers, action will be taken against you. This is a serious matter. We have seen the video. What you were doing was looking at the camera and there was a cross mark on it. Were staying.” ballot? Why were you marking?” Chief Justice Chandrachud asked.
AAP’s defeated mayoral candidate Kuldeep Kumar has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to grant interim relief for fresh elections. After this, the Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not passing any interim order.
new returning officer
Mr Masih explained in the moment of confession that the purpose of the markings was to distinguish spoiled ballot papers. Chief Justice Chandrachud questioned, “Why did you deface the ballot papers? You were only required to sign the papers. Where is it provided in the rules that you can put other marks on the ballot papers?”
Solicitor General Mehta found himself in the crosshairs as the Chief Justice asserted, “Mr. Solicitor, he (Mr. Masih) will have to be prosecuted. He is interfering in the election process.”
Chief Justice Chandrachud announced, “What we propose to do is this. We will direct the Deputy Commissioner to appoint a new returning officer who is not associated with any political party.”
Solicitor General Mehta sought the court’s intervention, drawing attention to the allegedly torn or mutilated ballot papers. However, Kuldeep Kumar’s lawyer contested this, claiming that only eight ballot papers needed to be examined and they were not torn. Following this, the Supreme Court resolved to examine the disputed papers today, demanding their production with adequate security.
The Chief Justice said, “The process of horse-trading that is going on is a serious matter.”
The Supreme Court reserved its decision on holding re-elections or validating the earlier votes.
