NEW DELHI: Holding him guilty of “serious misdemeanor” in his role as presiding officer of Chandigarh Mayor election and also for patently lying before it, Supreme Court on Tuesday initiated proceedings against Anil Masih and directed its registry to issue notice to him. A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said that a case was made out against him to proceed under Section 34 of Criminal Procedure Code and asked the registry to issue show cause notice to him to explain why proceedings be not commenced against him.
Section 340 talks about procedures to be followed in case of prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
Masih has been at the centre of the controversy as he had illegally invalidated eight votes cast in favour of AAP-Congress joint candidate, which led to unexpected win of BJP candidate. The court, which had earlier termed him as looking like a fugitive, came down heavily on him for lying to court.
The court on Monday had warned him to be truthful in his responses or face the prosecution. “Mr Masih, I am asking you questions. If you are not giving a truthful answer, you will be prosecuted,” the CJI had told him. In his response to the court’s query on why he had put his marks on ballot paper, Masih told the bench that eight ballot papers were already defaced and his mark was not to deface it.
The bench, which physically examined the eight papers, found that ballot papers were not defaced and only his mark was there at the bottom of the paper. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for AAP-Congress candidate, submitted that the RO misled the court and it was his imaginary assessment to declare votes invalid.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the RO, however, said that he might be wrong in his assessment but he cannot be said to be a thief or fugitive.
The court in its order noted that the officer had evidently put his mark on paper to create a ground of invalidation and he acted beyond rules and regulations. “Pressing officer is guilty of serious misdemeanor in his role and capacity as presiding officer…”The conduct of the Presiding Officer has to be deprecated at two levels. Firstly, he has unlawfully altered the course of the Mayoral election. Secondly, in making a solemn statement before this Court on 19 Feb, the Presiding Officer expressed falsehood for which he must be held accountable,” the bench said. “Masih could not have been unmindful of making a statement which was false. Registrar Judicial is directed to show-cause Anil Masih as to why steps should not be initiated against him under Section 340, CrPC. Anil Masih shall have an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice,” it said.
Section 340 talks about procedures to be followed in case of prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
Masih has been at the centre of the controversy as he had illegally invalidated eight votes cast in favour of AAP-Congress joint candidate, which led to unexpected win of BJP candidate. The court, which had earlier termed him as looking like a fugitive, came down heavily on him for lying to court.
The court on Monday had warned him to be truthful in his responses or face the prosecution. “Mr Masih, I am asking you questions. If you are not giving a truthful answer, you will be prosecuted,” the CJI had told him. In his response to the court’s query on why he had put his marks on ballot paper, Masih told the bench that eight ballot papers were already defaced and his mark was not to deface it.
The bench, which physically examined the eight papers, found that ballot papers were not defaced and only his mark was there at the bottom of the paper. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for AAP-Congress candidate, submitted that the RO misled the court and it was his imaginary assessment to declare votes invalid.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the RO, however, said that he might be wrong in his assessment but he cannot be said to be a thief or fugitive.
The court in its order noted that the officer had evidently put his mark on paper to create a ground of invalidation and he acted beyond rules and regulations. “Pressing officer is guilty of serious misdemeanor in his role and capacity as presiding officer…”The conduct of the Presiding Officer has to be deprecated at two levels. Firstly, he has unlawfully altered the course of the Mayoral election. Secondly, in making a solemn statement before this Court on 19 Feb, the Presiding Officer expressed falsehood for which he must be held accountable,” the bench said. “Masih could not have been unmindful of making a statement which was false. Registrar Judicial is directed to show-cause Anil Masih as to why steps should not be initiated against him under Section 340, CrPC. Anil Masih shall have an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice,” it said.
