Chandigarh Mayor Result Quashed Under Article 142: Presiding Officer's Own Marks Cannot Invalidate Validly Cast Ballots

The Chandigarh Municipal Corporation elects its Mayor at its first meeting each year, at a meeting presided over by a nominated councillor who is not a candidate (para 3). After a postponement that the High Court set aside, the election was held on 30 January 2024 with Anil Masih presiding (paras 9-10). Of thirty-six votes, eight were declared invalid and the rival candidate was declared elected with sixteen votes against the appellant's twelve (paras 11-12). The High Court declined interim relief on the appellant's writ petition (para 13). This Court had the ballots and the video footage sequestered and produced (paras 14-16).

Regulation 6(10) allows a ballot to be treated as invalid only where a member votes for more than one candidate, places an identifying mark, or marks it so that the choice is doubtful (para 19). On inspection, each of the eight ballots was validly cast for the appellant, and the Presiding Officer had put his own mark on the bottom half to create a ground for rejecting it (paras 26-27). None of the three grounds applied, and the ballots had not been defaced (paras 29-30). The Presiding Officer acted beyond his remit, made a deliberate effort to secure the rival's election and made a patently false statement before the Court despite a warning (paras 28, 31-32). Setting aside the whole election would compound the damage, since the only infirmity arose at the counting stage (para 35). Free and fair elections are part of the basic structure, and local elections are a microcosm of the larger democratic structure (para 36). Misconduct by the presiding officer himself, visible on camera, was an extraordinary situation justifying Article 142 (para 37). Adding the eight votes gave the appellant twenty votes against sixteen (para 38).