Breaking: Madras High Court Rejects Election Petition Challenging Udhayanidhi Stalin's Victory

Madras High Court on Thursday allowed a petition filed by Actor and Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni MLA Udayanidhi Stalin to reject an election petition filed by one R. Premalatha challenging his victory in the 2021 elections. Justice V Bharatidasan while passing the orders observed that Udayanidhi Stalin had given details regarding the 22 criminal cases pending against him and that there was no material in the election petition to substantiate the allegations made against him. The election peitioner had challenged the MLA's victory stating that he had not disclosed material information as per Form 26 of The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. She further alleged that the MLA had colluded with the Presiding/section officer who was the MLA'S wife's teacher. Mr. Udayanidhi Stalin in his application to quash the election petition stated that the election petition was bereft of any material facts and is an abuse of process of law and liable to be rejected. He stated that he had given information regarding all the criminal cases pending against him and that Section 33A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 was duly complied with. 33A. Right to information.—(1) A candidate shall, apart from any information which he is required to furnish, under this Act or the rules made thereunder, in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of section 33, also furnish the information as to whether—(i) he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the court of competent jurisdiction;(ii) he has been convicted of an offence [other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), or covered in sub-section (3), of section 8] and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.(2) The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at the time of delivering to the returning officer the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of section 33, also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate in a prescribed form verifying the information specified in sub-section (1).(3) The returning officer shall, as soon as may be after the furnishing of information to him under sub-section (1), display the aforesaid information by affixing a copy of the affidavit, delivered under sub-section (2), at a conspicuous place at his office for the information of the electors relating to a constituency for which the nomination paper is delivered.] Mr. Stalin further stated that though the election petitioner said that the Presiding/Section Officer had colluded with him, the details of the collusion was not provided. The petition did not disclose any act done by the MLA that would show collision in his part. Case Title: Udayanithi Stalin v. R Premalatha Case No: OA 40 of 2022 in ELP 12 of 2021Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 184Click here to read/download the judgment

Breaking: Madras High Court Rejects Election Petition Challenging Udhayanidhi Stalin's Victory

Upasana Sajeev

Tags