Madras High Court Reserves Order On CM Vijay's Plea To Reject Election Petition; Asks If Asset Non-Disclosure Constituted 'Undue Influence'
The Madras High Court has reserved orders on an application filed by Tamil Nadu CM Joseph Vijay seeking to reject an election petition filed by a voter challenging his victory from the Perambur assembly constituency.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan reserved the orders after hearing Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan (for the CM) and Advocate Ashok (for the voter). The judge asked the counsels involved to submit their written submissions by Wednesday (October 14)
The voter, S Dinesh had approached the High Court alleging that there were several discrepancies in the financial disclosures made by Vijay in his election affidavit.
Seeking to reject the election petition, Vijay argued that minor discrepancies in the election affidavit were not a ground to set aside his election, as there were no material particulars to show how the same affected the result of the election.
It was further submitted that there was no pleading to establish that petitioner was a voter in the constituency and thus, whether he satisfied Section 81 of the Representation of People Act itself was a question.
The provision prescribes that an election petition may be presented to the High Court by any candidate or elector, subject to conditions prescribed.
When the matter was heard yesterday, the court asked the election petitioner (voter) if Vijay not disclosing 30 crore worth of assets would amount to a corrupt practice. The court wondered how it would matter to a voter if Vijay had assets worth Rs 600 crore or more.
When the case was taken up today, Advocate Ashok argued that any form of suppression, whether direct or indirect, would come under undue influence. He argued that the moment an asset is not disclosed, it would constitute an offence under the Representation of Peoples Act.
When the Court asked if there needs to be a wilful suppression or if any suppression would come under undue influence, the counsel submitted that the provision only states 'suppression' and thus any suppression would be undue influence
"The moment assets are not disclosed, it constitutes an offence under S. 123 of the RP Act. Any direct or indirect non-disclosure is an offence...by suppressing certain facts, indirectly the voter's mind is influenced," Ashok argued.
"The very fact that it says undue influence, wouldn't it mean that it should be wilful suppression?" the judge then asked.
To this, the counsel said that whether the suppression was wilful or not could be decided only at the time of trial and not while considering an application to reject the petition. The counsel further argued that non-disclosure of property could not be put on a different pedestal than non-disclosure of criminal antecedents.
"Non-disclosure of assets cannot be put on a different pedestal than non-disclosure of criminal antecedents. If any substantial property is left out, it will also come under undue influence," the counsel argued.
When the counsel mentioned that Vijay had declared a government poramboke land as part of his assets, the court wondered if the same could be an offence under the RP Act. The court also pointed out that Vijay had shown a sale deed with respect to the said property.
The counsel however responded that it would be an improper disclosure and whether the sale deed was true or not could be proved only during trial. He added that the veracity and tenability of the statement in the election petition cannot be gone into at this stage.
The Court, however, wondered if the election Tribunal had powers to go into the title of the property. The counsel argued that the election tribunal could go into the veracity of the statements made in the affidavit, with respect to ownership of the property.
The voter also pointed out that though it was argued by the CM that the election affidavit was made public and any discrepancies should have been pointed out to the concerned officer at that time, such an enquiry, he said, would only be summary in nature. The voter argued that the election officer could not conduct a detailed enquiry in the 24 hours and thus, even if no objection was raised at the time of filing nomination, the same could be raised at the time of election petition. He argued that the election petition was proper, had satisfied all the requirements, and did not deserve to be rejected.
On Vijay's side, it was argued that non-disclosure of some assets was not similar to non-disclosure of criminal antecedents. He argued that a voter had to know the criminal history of the candidate. However, a voter who knew that Vijay was a wealthy man would not be affected if some assets were not disclosed.
"The voter knows that my client is wealthy. If he's wealthy, the question is additional worth, can we equate that to criminalisation of politics? For whom would it make a difference. There may be some voter who might think they'll not vote for Vijay if he has more than 650 crore assets. Then the election petitioner has to show that these are the voters who were affected by disclosure," Sankaranarayanan argued.
He thus reiterated that the non-disclosure was not material to affect the result of the election and thus, the petition deserved to be rejected.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Ms Dixita Gohil, Mr Pranjal Agarwal for Gohil Agarwal Law Chambers
Counsel for Respondent: Mr Ashok