Audit flags delay in action against Masih over ballot paper tampering in 2024 Chandigarh mayoral poll

The Indian Audit and Accounts Department has questioned the Municipal Corporation as to why no action was taken against nominated councillor Anil Masih in an alleged case of tampering with ballot papers during the Mayoral election held on January 30, 2024. The civic body’s reply that the decision on action against Masih was pending with the higher authority has been noted by the department, which has kept its observation pending.

In its 2026 report, the Indian Audit and Account Department of the Principal Director General of Audit (Central), Chandigarh, referred to the queries it had raised on June 2 this year. The department had asked the MC whether any action had been taken in light of the Supreme Court’s directions; whether action had been taken against Masih, the presiding officer, under Section 33(2) of the MC Act, 1976, after he was found guilty; the reasons for not taking action; and whether a nominated councillor is a public servant and, if so, why his services continued after the misconduct?

The controversy over the tempering with ballot papers during the Mayoral election received nationwide attention two years ago after the incident was captured on CCTV cameras. The Supreme Court subsequently set aside the result of the election declared by the presiding officer, Masih, and declared the appellant, AAP candidate Kuldeep Kumar, to be the validly elected candidate for the post of Chandigarh Mayor.

The 2026 report of Assistant Audit Officer mentioned the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Kumar versus UT Chandigarh and Others, and provisions under Section 33 read with Sections 27 and 31 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, as extended to the UT. These sections provide details of offences and penalties relating to the fraudulent defacement or destruction of nomination papers or ballot papers.

According to the audit report, the Act provides that if a person found guilty of such an offence is a returning officer or presiding officer of a polling station, or any other officer or clerk employed on official duty in connection with an election, he or she be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to two years or a fine, or both. In case the convict is any other person, the punishment may extend to six months of imprisonment or a fine, or both.

The audit report said the department accepted that the MC response that the decision was pending with the higher authority, adding that “the (audit) observation will stand till the final outcomes/decision comes in this case from the MC. Final reply is awaited in the audit.”

The report referred to the Supreme Court order in respect of presiding officer Masih’s conduct during the Mayoral election. The court had found it to be a fit and proper case for invoking its jurisdiction under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The apex court had directed the Registrar (Judicial) to issue a show-cause notice to Masih, asking him to explain why steps should not be initiated against him under Section 340 of the CrPC.