Failure To Disclose Assets Amounts To Corrupt Practice Under Provisions Of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, Confirms Madras HC

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea challenging an order passed by the Principal District Judge wherein a voter had sought to countermand and declare the election of the petitioner to the post of 5th Ward Councillor, of Thirukattuthurai Village Panchayat of Karur Union, as null and void.

The High Court held so while considering an impugned judgment whereby it was held that the petitioner’s failure to disclose her assets had amounted to undue influence and consequently to corrupt practice vis-à-vis Section 259(b) and (d) (i) and (iv) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994.

It was the case of the petitioner that the Principal District Judge had failed to note that the petitioner had not resorted to any corrupt practices within the meaning of Section 260 of the Act of 1994.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice C. Saravanan observed that “Since the petitioner failed to correctly declare the details of assets accrued in the nomination, the law on the subject is now clear. It has to be construed that in the absence of proper declaration by the petitioner, the petitioner resorted to “corrupt practise”.

In short, once non-disclosure is proved in the Election Petition, it would amount to “corrupt practice”, added the Bench.

Advocate P.M. Vishnu Vardhan appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate S. Kameswaran appeared for the Respondent.

After considering the submission, the Bench stated that under the provision of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Rules, 1994, the Returning Officer was empowered to condone the minor lapses of the candidate in the declaration in the nomination filed and still permit the candidate to participate in the election.

“Voters did not get to peruse or scrutinize the nomination filed by a candidate in the election and merely cast vote in the election in favour of their candidates who cleared the first threshold after nomination filed was accepted by the Returning Officer”, added the Bench.

The Bench further highlighted that barring Section 37, 38, and 38A of the Act of 1994, none of the other provisions was relevant for enquiry in the present Civil Revision Petition, and Section 37 was not attracted as it dealt with past criminal proceedings against a candidate, however, it would apply before election and declaration of the result.

While stating that the Sections dealt with the disqualification of candidates, members, President, Vice President, Chairman & Vice Chairman, the Bench explained that Section 37 of the Act of 1994 applied before the election, whereas, Sections 38 & 38A of the Act of 1994 applied after the election.

However, the Bench clarified that the circumstances specified in these provisions did not apply to the facts of the present case.

The High Court also stated that under Section 258(2) of the Act of 1994, an election petition calling into question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 259 by any candidate at such election, by any elector of the ward concerned or by any member.

Thus, the High Court explained that the first respondent was entitled to file an election petition to question the election of the petitioner to the Ward, and the test would be whether by not giving all the particulars of the assets acquired, the petitioner was guilty of any ‘corrupt practice”.

With these observations, the High Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: P. Baby v B. Bharanitharan and Ors.

Click here to read/download the Order