Anil Masih
Former officer Anil Masih, accused of rigging during the mayor elections in Chandigarh, apologized to the Supreme Court on Friday. A hearing was held in the Supreme Court on Friday in the matter of declaring 8 votes invalid in the mayor election held on January 30, 2024 in Chandigarh. During this hearing he apologized. While hearing this in February, the Supreme Court had issued a notice in the case of contempt of court against former election officer Anil Masih. The court had admitted that he had deliberately invalidated the votes and had later filed false statements in the court.
Anil Masih has apologized to the Supreme Court. He has said in the court that he made a mistake in this matter. The court has already rejected the decision of BJP Mayor of Chandigarh.
Lawyer Mukul Rohatgi has said that we have apologized unconditionally. Now Anil Masih will withdraw his old affidavit and will give an unconditional apology by giving another affidavit. Senior lawyer Singhvi said that he has no problem if he apologizes unconditionally.
read this also
Anil Masih apologized
In response to the notice, Election Officer Anil Masih had earlier replied in the court that when he last came to the Supreme Court to give his statement, his health was not well. He was taking drugs in large quantities from Chandigarh PGI. Because of this he does not know what statement he has given.
A lot of political controversy had arisen after the case of cancellation of eight votes by Anil Masih. Aam Aadmi Party had fiercely attacked BJP regarding this and later the court had declared this counting of votes illegal.
Know what was the matter
In the Municipal Corporation elections held on January 30, BJP got a total of 16 votes, which includes 14 councilors of BJP, one councilor of Akali Dal and one MP. Whereas India Alliance got 20 votes, which includes 13 councilors of Aam Aadmi Party and 7 of Congress. But election officer Anil Masih declared eight votes of the alliance invalid. When this matter reached the Supreme Court, it was accepted in the court that the election officials themselves were marking the votes in front of the camera.