The Supreme Court of India, in proceedings on 30 January 2024, found that the presiding officer of the Chandigarh mayoral election had deliberately defaced ballot papers to manipulate the outcome of the vote. A Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra directed that election records be sequestered under the custody of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and ordered fresh counting of votes under judicial supervision, emphasising the sanctity of the democratic process.
Background
The Chandigarh Municipal Corporation mayoral election was held on 30 January 2024, with the post contested between candidates backed by competing political alliances. Following the initial counting, the candidate supported by the INDIA alliance alleged large-scale irregularities in the counting process, contending that multiple ballot papers had been invalidated by the presiding officer through deliberate defacement — specifically, by marking crosses on ballots cast in favour of the opposition candidate, rendering them invalid.
The matter reached the Supreme Court with extraordinary speed after CCTV footage from the counting hall appeared to show the presiding officer making marks on ballot papers during the counting process. The footage, which was widely circulated, prompted an urgent hearing before the Bench. The election dispute raised fundamental questions about the integrity of the electoral process at the municipal level and the adequacy of safeguards against manipulation by officials entrusted with conducting elections.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court made the following observations and directions:
Deliberate defacement established: After reviewing the CCTV footage and other material on record, the Court found that the presiding officer had deliberately defaced ballots cast in favour of one candidate, with the intent of altering the election result. The Court characterised this as a grave assault on the democratic process.
Election records sequestered: All ballot papers, counting records, and related documents were directed to be immediately secured and placed under the custody of the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to prevent any further tampering.
Fresh counting ordered: The Court directed a fresh counting of all ballot papers under the supervision of a judicial officer, with representatives of all candidates present and full video recording of the process.
Sanctity of democratic process reaffirmed: The Bench emphasised that the right to free and fair elections extends to every tier of democratic governance, including municipal bodies. Manipulation of electoral processes by officials constitutes a violation of the constitutional fabric and must be met with the strictest judicial response.
Action against presiding officer: The Court directed that appropriate criminal proceedings be initiated against the presiding officer for his role in the ballot tampering, and that the matter be investigated by an independent authority.
Implications for Practitioners
This order carries significance well beyond the immediate municipal election dispute. The Supreme Court's willingness to intervene directly in a local body election on the basis of contemporaneous video evidence establishes an important precedent for the judicial scrutiny of electoral processes at all levels of governance.
For election law practitioners, the case underscores the evidentiary value of CCTV and video surveillance in counting halls. Candidates and political parties contesting elections at any level would be well-advised to insist on comprehensive video recording of counting processes and to ensure that such footage is preserved independently of the returning officer's control.
The direction for criminal proceedings against the presiding officer sends a strong deterrent signal to election officials. Practitioners advising municipal corporations and election bodies should recommend enhanced oversight protocols, including independent monitoring mechanisms, to prevent similar incidents and protect the integrity of the democratic process.