The Chandigarh mayoral polls have been embroiled in controversy following the actions of Anil Masih, the former presiding officer whose decision to declare the BJP candidate as the winner came under intense scrutiny. The recent developments saw Masih tendering an unconditional apology before the Supreme Court, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi.

The apology, presented before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, marked a significant turn in the legal proceedings. Rohatgi emphasized the sincerity of the apology, stating Masih's intent to withdraw the initial affidavit and submit to the court's magnanimity.

The controversy stems from Masih's decision to declare the BJP candidate as the winner of the Chandigarh Mayor polls despite video evidence showing him defacing ballot papers. This decision, which led to the invalidation of votes for the AAP candidate, prompted legal challenges and allegations of fraud by AAP Councillor Kuldeep Kumar.

In February, the Supreme Court intervened, quashing Masih's decision and ruling Kumar as the rightful winner of the mayoral polls. The court's rebuke of Masih's conduct, citing "unlawful alteration" of the election's course and "patent falsehood" in his statements, underscored the gravity of the situation.

The legal battle also exposed discrepancies in the electoral process, as the declared winner did not align with the majority alliance in the house. BJP's Manoj Sonkar claimed victory with 16 votes against the AAP-Congress candidate Kuldeep Kumar's 12 votes, despite the alliance's majority.

Kumar's persistence through legal channels, from the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the Supreme Court, reflects a commitment to electoral integrity. The apex court's acknowledgment of political maneuvering, including defections and "horse-trading," further emphasizes the broader implications of such controversies on democratic processes.

The upcoming proceedings in July promise a detailed examination of the matter, highlighting the judiciary's role in upholding electoral fairness and accountability. 

Case: Kuldeep Kumar vs UT Chandigarh and ors.