UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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