NDLI: Kuldeep Kumar Vs. U.t. Chandigarh and Others

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Election Mayor
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (42 of 1976) Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, (0 of 1996) Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994 (45 of 1994) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Directions Issued
Headnote	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 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 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]
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2024 INSC 129
Petitioner	Kuldeep Kumar
Respondent	U.t. Chandigarh And Others
SCR	[2024] 2 S.C.R. 693
Judgement Date	2024-02-20
Case Number	2874

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Kuldeep Kumar Vs. U.t. Chandigarh and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Mandeep Kumar and Others Vs. U.t. Chandigarh & Others

Pranay Kumar Podder Vs. State of Tripura and Others

Estate Officer, U.t. Chandigarh and Others Vs. Rajan Soi and Others

U.t. Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Anr.

Alok Kumar Singh & Others Vs. State of U.p. & Others

Bawa Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.t. Chandigarh

Union of India Through Chandigarh Administration (u.t.) Chandigarh and Anr. Vs. S.k. Sharma, Professor of Civil Engineering Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh

Kamleshwar Paswan Vs. State of U.t. Chandigarh

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Kuldeep Kumar Vs. U.t. Chandigarh and Others

Kuldeep Kumar Vs. U.t. Chandigarh and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Mandeep Kumar and Others Vs. U.t. Chandigarh & Others

Pranay Kumar Podder Vs. State of Tripura and Others

Estate Officer, U.t. Chandigarh and Others Vs. Rajan Soi and Others

U.t. Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Anr.

Alok Kumar Singh & Others Vs. State of U.p. & Others

Bawa Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.t. Chandigarh

Union of India Through Chandigarh Administration (u.t.) Chandigarh and Anr. Vs. S.k. Sharma, Professor of Civil Engineering Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh

Kamleshwar Paswan Vs. State of U.t. Chandigarh

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Kuldeep Kumar Vs. U.t. Chandigarh and Others