KULDEEP KUMAR versus U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

KULDEEP KUMAR versus U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

Physical inspection of the eight ballots showed each vote was validly cast for the appellant (rubber stamp on the upper half); none of the three grounds for invalidity in Regulation 6(10) applied; the Presiding Officer placed ink marks on the lower half of those ballots and thereby acted beyond his remit to create a ground to treat them as invalid; adding the eight valid votes gives the appellant twenty votes against sixteen for the opponent; the result declared by the Presiding Officer was contrary to law and is quashed; the appellant is declared the validly elected Mayor; a notice under Section 340 CrPC is to be issued to the Presiding Officer for a statement prima facie false to his...

Parties
Appellant: Kuldeep Kumar; Respondent: U.T. Chandigarh; Presiding Officer / Seventh Respondent: Anil Masih; Eighth Respondent / Candidate: Manoj Kumar Sonkar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment and Final Disposal by Supreme Court
Outcome
Result declared by the Presiding Officer quashed; appellant declared validly elected as Mayor; notice issued under Section 340 CrPC to the Presiding Officer
Legal Topics
Free and Fair Elections, Electoral Malpractice, Defacing Ballots, Article 142, Section 340 Cr PC, Mayoral Election, Judicial Review
Constitutional Law Election Law Municipal Law Criminal Procedure Free and Fair Elections Electoral Malpractice Defacing Ballots Article 142 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kuldeep Kumar

Appellant

U.T. Chandigarh

Respondent

Anil Masih

Presiding Officer / Seventh Respondent

Manoj Kumar Sonkar

Eighth Respondent / Candidate

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment and Final Disposal by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the result of the Mayor election was contrary to law due to alleged electoral malpractices by the Presiding Officer during counting
  2. 2 Whether the eight ballots treated as invalid were in fact valid under Regulation 6(10) and 6(11) of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation Regulations, 1996
  3. 3 Whether the Court should set aside the entire election or give specific relief under Article 142

Ratio Decidendi

Physical inspection of the eight ballots showed each vote was validly cast for the appellant (rubber stamp on the upper half); none of the three grounds for invalidity in Regulation 6(10) applied; the Presiding Officer placed ink marks on the lower half of those ballots and thereby acted beyond his remit to create a ground to treat them as invalid; adding the eight valid votes gives the appellant twenty votes against sixteen for the opponent; the result declared by the Presiding Officer was contrary to law and is quashed; the appellant is declared the validly elected Mayor; a notice under Section 340 CrPC is to be issued to the Presiding Officer for a statement prima facie false to his...

Court Disposition

Result declared by the Presiding Officer quashed; appellant declared validly elected as Mayor; notice issued under Section 340 CrPC to the Presiding Officer

Orders

  • Result of the election as declared by the Presiding Officer (Anil Masih) quashed and set aside
  • Appellant Kuldeep Kumar declared to be the validly elected Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation