Right To Know About Candidate Comes Within Ambit Of Article 19: Madras HC Nullifies Election Of AIADMK MP For Not Disclosing Assets
The Madras High Court while deciding an election petition challenging the election of AIADMK Member OP Ravindhranath, son of Ex Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam, declared the election as null and avoid. O P Ravindhranath was elected from Theni Constituency of Tamil Nadu in the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections.
A Bench headed by Justice S S Sundar held that “This Court holds that the Returned Candidate has suppressed his assets equivalent to the value of 15,000 equity shares in M/s.Vani Fabrics Private Limited. Further, the 3rd respondent has given a false information in the Election Affidavit filed under Rule 4[A] of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.”
Advocate V. Arun represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate A.K.Sriram represented O P Ravindhranath.
The Petitioner challenged the appointment of the respondent, O P Ravindranath from Theni Constituency, on violation grounds under Sections 81, 100[1][a], 100[1][b], 100[1][d][i], 100[1][d][ii], 100[1][d][iii], 100[1][d][iv], 33, 36, 77, 123[1][A][b], and 123[1][B][b] of the Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Rules 88, 89 of Conduct of the Election Rules, 1961.
The main contention of the Petitioner was that the respondent failed to reveal a complete picture of his assets and liabilities. Further, it was submitted by the Petitioner that the acceptance of nomination was improper by the Returning Officer and that there was corruption in terms of distributing money by Respondent No.3 and his associates.
The Court while examining all the issues and perusing the statement of witnesses, and the declarations submitted by the parties, while deciding on the 1st Issue of suppression of assets placed reliance on the case of Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr., 2002 [5] SCC 294.
The Court on the matter of suppression of assets said that “Regarding suppression of assets and liabilities, the burden lies on the petitioner to prove it. This Court holds that the Returned Candidate has suppressed his assets equivalent to the value of 15,000 equity shares in M/s.Vani Fabrics Private Limited allegedly transferred by the Returned Candidate in favor of his brother and other assets and sources of income as admitted by him."
On the 2nd Issue of improper nomination by the Returning Officer, the Court held that the Returning Officer has not conducted the scrutiny of nominations strictly in terms of Section 36 of the RP Act, 1951 and instructions given under the Hand Book.
"She has shown her partisan attitude in favour of 3 rd respondent at the time of scrutiny.", added the Court. As a consequence, the Court held that the nomination of the respondent has been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer.
For the issue of corruption and distributing money, the Court observed that “The petitioner has not produced any independent witness to prove corrupt practices as seen through the video. To attract section 123 of the Act, one should establish bribery by any gift, offer or promise, by a candidate or his agent or by any person with the consent of the candidate. In this case, there is no direct proof that Mrs.Saveetha Arunprasad is the agent of 3 rd respondent or she was doing with the consent of 3 rd respondent or his election agent. Therefore, this Court is unable to hold that the petitioner has established corrupt practices as defined under section 123 of the RP Act, 1951.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Election Petition and declared the election of the respondent as null and void.
Cause Title: P. Milany v. S. Arumugam and Ors.
