CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

A Murder of Democracy – Supreme Court Criticizes Chandigarh Mayoral Election Irregularities

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant stance in the case concerning alleged irregularities in the Chandigarh mayoral election. The primary legal point revolves around the conduct of the returning officer, Anil Masih, and the integrity of the electoral process.

The case emerged against the backdrop of the BJP’s victory in the Chandigarh mayoral polls held on January 30, which was marred by allegations of ballot paper tampering. The Congress-AAP alliance accused Anil Masih of tampering with the ballot papers during the counting process. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) approached the Supreme Court challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision, which had earlier denied interim relief and refused to order fresh elections.

The Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, expressed grave concern over the allegations. The Court noted, “The integrity of the electoral process is a fundamental pillar of democracy, and any interference with it is akin to a murder of democracy.” The Court ordered the preservation of all election records, including the contentious ballot papers and video recordings of the counting process, for a detailed examination.

Justice Chandrachud remarked, “Any form of tampering or undue influence in the election process undermines the will of the people and cannot be tolerated.” The bench also ordered the prosecution of Anil Masih for his alleged role in interfering with the electoral process.

The Supreme Court directed the judicial officer responsible for safeguarding the election records to be provided with security. The Court scheduled a further examination of the ballot papers and video recordings on February 20, 2024, which is crucial for determining the outcome of the case.

Next date : February 20, 2024

KULDEEP KUMAR VS U.T. CHANDIGARH & ORS. 

Latest Legal News