Source: The Indian Express

Introduction

Recently, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra declared Kuldeep Kumar as the winner of the Chandigarh mayoral election after finding that the presiding officer Anil Masih had deliberately invalidated eight ballots cast in favor of Kuldeep Kumar.

• The aforementioned observation was made in the matter of Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh.

What was the Background of the Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh Case?

• The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by Kuldeep Kumar against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to stay the results of the Chandigarh mayoral election where the Presiding Officer Anil Masih, was seen on camera placing a mark on eight ballot papers during the polls.
• Anil Masih who was in attendance during the court proceedings, had set aside these eight votes as invalid and Manoj Sonkar was declared the winner on 30^th January 2024.
• The Supreme Court had ordered the production of the ballot papers and the records, which were taken into the custody of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as per the previous order issued on 5^th February 2024.
• The Supreme Court declared the results announced by the Presiding Officer Anil Masih on January 30, 2024, whereby the BJP candidate Manoj Kumar Sonkar was declared as the winner, to be illegal and set it aside.
• The Supreme Court also reasoned that a fresh election was not necessary as the votes that Masih had invalidated were actually valid.

On What grounds did the Supreme Court Strike Down the Result?

• The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) to pass the directions to do complete justice and to protect the sanctity of electoral democracy.
• The Court expressed that allowing such a step to take place would be disruptive of the most valued principles in the edifice of democracy in our country.

What is Article 142 of the COI?

• About:
  • Article 142 of the COI provides discretionary power of the Supreme Court.
  • It deals with the enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc. It states that -

(1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.

• Objectives:
  • Article 142 of the COI provides a unique power to the Supreme Court, to do complete justice between the parties, where, at times, the law or statute may not provide a remedy.
  • In those situations, the Court can extend itself to put an end to a dispute in a manner that would fit the facts of the case.
• Constructive Application:
  • In the early years of the evolution of Article 142, the general public and the lawyers both lauded the SC for its efforts to bring complete justice to various deprived sections of society or to protect the environment.
  • The Cleansing of Taj Mahal and justice to many undertrials is a result of the invocation of this article only.
• Case Laws:
  • Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India Case (1991), the Supreme Court placed itself above the laws made by the Parliament or the legislatures of the States by saying that, to do complete justice, it could even override the laws made by Parliament.
  • Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court stated that Article 142 of the COI could not be used to supplant the existing law, but only to supplement the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court stepped in such exceptional circumstances to ensure that the basic mandate of electoral democracy albeit at the local participatory level is preserved and to ensure that the process of electoral democracy is not allowed to be thwarted by such subterfuge.