Elected AAP councillor Kuldeep Kumar filed a request to the Punjab and Haryana High Court to annul the election process shortly after the BJP candidate won the UT mayoral contest. He described the election as a “result of complete fraud and forgery laid upon the democratic process.”
Kumar additionally requested that the “entire fraud committed during the election process” be looked into by an impartial body, such as a special investigation team led by the UT Senior Superintendent of Police.
Additionally, instructions were requested to “seal, preserve and present before the High Court the entire process of the election held on January 30, including the record of ballot papers, proceedings of the election process, and videography done under the court” for the Chandigarh Union Territory and other respondents.
Kumar also prayed for a direction to restrain respondent Manoj Kumar Sonkar from discharging the mayor’s functions. The petition filed through counsel RPS Bara, KS Kharbanda, and Ferry Sofat will come up for hearing on Wednesday. Senior advocate Gurminder Singh is expected to argue on the petitioner’s behalf.
The petitioner, providing specifics of the events that transpired earlier in the day, argued that the issue arose when the presiding officer asked everyone to move aside after instructing Municipal Corporation officials to empty the ballot box into a tray that was placed on the table. The Congress and AAP council members immediately brought up the issue that a nominee from each party contesting the election from the elected council members needed to participate, along with the presiding officer, to monitor the position of the votes cast in accordance with the rules and precedents, after he announced in the house that he would begin the vote counting. However, the presiding officer made a very weak statement to the House, stating that he would count the votes himself and that he did not want any help from the members nominated by the parties running for office. Reportedly, the deputy commissioner and the joint commissioner or municipal corporation secretary did not object to the election being held in this partisan manner.
The petitioner mentioned that three baskets—one for the AAP candidates and one for the BJP—were set up in front of the presiding officer. The third concerned invalid ballots. The petitioner claimed that the presiding officer “completely compromised the election process by forgery and tampering” when he shuffled the votes from one basket to another in order to cause confusion, as shown by the footage.
“He behaved in such an arrogant manner that after shuffling these votes, he behaved in a suspicious manner and was evidently tampering with the votes polled, which can be easily viewed in the videography duly ordered by the High Court,” the petition stated.
