Kuldeep Kumar vs. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors. (2024)

• Provisions Involved:
  • Article 142 of the Indian Constitution: This provision grants the Supreme Court the power to issue decrees or orders to ensure complete justice in any cause or matter.
  • Section 340 of the CrPC: This deals with initiating criminal proceedings when false evidence or misleading information is provided during judicial proceedings.
     
• Facts of the Case: The case involved a dispute over the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation Mayoral election held on January 30, 2024, where Kuldeep Kumar, an AAP candidate, contested the election result that declared BJP’s Manoj Kumar Sonkar as the winner. The controversy arose when the Presiding Officer, Anil Masih, declared eight ballots in favor of Kuldeep Kumar invalid, citing defacement and unclear markings on the ballots. Kuldeep Kumar challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the disqualification of the ballots was unjustified. The case escalated when video footage of the electoral process was produced, and the ballots were examined by the Court.
   
• Supreme Court’s Ruling: On February 20, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kuldeep Kumar, declaring him the rightful Mayor of Chandigarh. The Court found no credible evidence to support the Presiding Officer's claims of defaced ballots, leading to the conclusion that the eight invalidated votes should be counted in Kumar’s favor. The Court ruled that Kumar had received the majority votes, overturning the previous result. The Court meticulously examined three criteria to invalidate ballots under Regulation 6 of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation Regulations:
  • Multiple Voting: If a voter marked more than one candidate.
  • Identifying Marks: If there were marks that could identify the voter.
  • Ambiguity in Marking: If the marking made it unclear which candidate was chosen.
  The Court found that none of the invalidated ballots met these disqualification criteria. Consequently, the Court ruled that Kuldeep Kumar had won the majority vote.
   
• Key Clarifications:
  • Regulation 6 of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation Regulations governs the conduct of elections, especially regarding the validity of ballot papers. The Court emphasized strict adherence to these provisions to maintain the integrity of the election.
  • Section 340 of CrPC was invoked due to the Presiding Officer's actions in misrepresenting facts. The Court initiated criminal proceedings against Anil Masih for misconduct during the election.
     
• Relevant Paragraphs:
  • Paragraph 16: The Court directed the Registrar General of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to secure and sequester all election-related material, including the ballot papers and video footage of the counting process, for detailed examination.
  • Paragraph 19-20: The Court detailed the flaws in the Presiding Officer's decision to invalidate the ballots and emphasized that no legitimate basis existed for disqualifying the votes in favor of Kuldeep Kumar.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's ruling in Kuldeep Kumar vs. U.T. Chandigarh is significant for its stringent application of electoral law and its upholding of democratic principles. By invoking Article 142, the Court ensured that complete justice was done by rectifying an electoral anomaly and ensuring transparency in the election process. The initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC further demonstrates the Court's resolve to maintain accountability and fairness in the judicial process.

This case sets a precedent for handling similar electoral disputes and reinforces the judiciary's role in preserving the integrity of the democratic process.

For more details visit: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/42141796/