The Supreme Court has stepped in to address the issue surrounding the Chandigarh mayoral election, emphasizing the preservation of all election records. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, making a significant statement, declared a staunch commitment to preventing the “murder of democracy.” The court is scheduled to examine the case on February 12.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has approached the Supreme Court after facing a setback in the High Court, which declined to order a fresh election. The dissatisfied candidate, seeking justice, has now taken the matter to the Supreme Court.
What is the matter?
In the Chandigarh mayoral polls, Manoj Sonkar from the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) clinched victory with 16 votes, surpassing the Congress-Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) candidate Kuldeep Tita, who received 12 votes.
Controversy emerged when eight votes from the Aam Aadmi Party were declared invalid out of the total thirty-six votes. This led to allegations of rigging, prompting concerns from Opposition leaders who questioned the validity of the election process.
The opposition expressed its disappointment with the election result and sought justice by approaching the court. However, the High Court refused to order a new election. Subsequently, the candidates moved to the Supreme Court, where the court expressed its dismay over the proceedings.
Mockery of Democracy
A viral video has surfaced wherein the presiding officer can be distinctly observed canceling votes. The Supreme
Court, in response, has issued a stern statement, directing a message to the presiding officer that they are under scrutiny. The court emphasized that the officer must be held accountable for their actions and should face prosecution. Such actions were denounced as a flagrant mockery of democracy, with the Supreme Court asserting that such behavior is intolerable and against the principles of a democratic system.
Supreme Court intervention
Due to the intervention of the Supreme Court, there is relief for the opposition, which had been consistently
raising concerns. This intervention was deemed necessary to uphold the functioning of our democracy. When the video went viral, it shocked everyone, including the Supreme Court, which appeared frustrated and disappointed with the unfolding events. The decision on February 12 will now determine the course of action.
