New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take up in July a case of alleged contempt against Chandigarh mayor poll returning officer Anil Masih who was accused by the court of defacing ballots after the officer filed a fresh affidavit tendering unconditional apology for his action.

A bench headed by chief justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud posted the matter on July 23 to consider the affidavit.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Masih told the court that the officer filed an earlier affidavit in March where he stated that when he appeared before the court hearing on February 19, he was undergoing treatment for depression and anxiety disorder and spoke at a spur of the moment.

Rohatgi said, “I have advised him to withdraw the earlier affidavit and offer an unqualified apology. The apology may be considered by the court as it is completely unconditional.”

Also Read: Reeling under depression, anxiety: Anil Masih in affidavit ahead of SC hearing

The request was opposed by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Kuldeep Kumar, the present mayor of Chandigarh municipality who had approached the top court against the illegal act done by the returning officer.

Singhvi said, “It is always easy to come and offer unconditional apology. That is oversimplifying your actions.” Due to defacing of 8 votes by Masih, Kumar lost the mayor election to his rival candidate from Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). But the top court set aside the election result by counting the 8 ballots in his favour, declaring Kumar to be the winner with 20 out of the 36 votes polled in the January 30 election.

In its order of February 20, the court decided to initiate action against Masih and said, “A fit and proper case is made out under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in respect of the conduct of the presiding officer.”

Also Read: Brazen malpractice: SC on presiding officer’s role in Chandigarh mayor poll case

Masih admitted to making a mark on the ballots claiming that it was made by him to distinguish the already defaced votes as many members came to snatch the ballots from him. The Court had warned him then that any false statement will invite consequences. The bench caught his lie after it played out the video which showed that till the declaration of results there was no commotion in the House, contrary to what Masih claimed.

“By his conduct he has unlawfully altered the course of mayoral election. And in making a solemn statement on Monday, the presiding officer has expressed patent falsehood for which he needs to be held accountable,” the court had said.

The registrar (judicial) of the Supreme Court was directed to issue notice to him to showcause why action should not be initiated against him for making false statement to the Court which is punishable under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This provision states, “Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person, makes in a court of justice, any claim which he knows to be false.” It is punishable with a maximum punishment of two years imprisonment.

Following this, he filed an initial affidavit in March where he said that after the video recording of the election process was leaked online on January 31, he was subjected to incessant criticism, name calling and ad hominems by members of political parties as well as social media, which put him and his family under immense mental trauma and stress.

He even visited the psychiatry department of PGIMER Chandigarh in this regard on February 10 and his doctors, apprehending suicidal tendencies in him, directed a family member to remain always close to him and take all precautions to keep harmful, inflammable and sharp objects away from him.

He urged the court to ensure that his “safety and mental health” may be weighed and kept in mind while dealing with the case against him.

The court had taken a strict view of Masih’s conduct. In its order of February 20, it said, “This is not an ordinary case of alleged malpractice by candidates in an election, but electoral misconduct by the presiding officer himself. The brazen nature of the malpractice, visible on camera, makes the situation all the more extraordinary, justifying the invocation of the power of this Court under Article 142.”