The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the election of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader Kanimozhi Karunanidhi in the 2019 general elections from the Thoothukudi Lok Sabha constituency [Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs A Santhana Kumar]..A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi dismissed the election petition filed against Kanimozhi's election and allowed the appeal filed in this regard by Kanimozhi challenging a Madras High Court order declining to quash the election petition."So far as the present petition is concerned, there is no averment made as to how there was non-compliance with provisions of the Constitution or of RP Act or of the Rules or Order made thereunder and as to how such non-compliance had materially affected the result of the election, so as to attract the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, for declaring the election to be void", the court held. .Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing for the appellant, had submitted that the lead election petition, raising grievance over non-mention of her husband's PAN details in her affidavit disclosing assets, had been filed by a voter.It was pointed out that her husband was a foreign national and did not have such a card or any income from activities in India. Further, the respondents had not substantiated their allegations..On the other hand, the respondents argued that Kanimozhi was bound to disclose the details of status of filing of income tax return by her spouse in the foreign country and non-disclosure of the same tantamounted to suppression of facts and non-compliance of the statutory rules. In this regard it was stated that by not disclosing the financial status of her family, she had deprived the opportunity to the voters to decide about the casting of votes..The top court had in January 2020 ordered a stay on proceedings against Kanimozhi in the case, as well as the High Court order under challenge..On examining the election petition, the Court opined that it was obligatory on the part of the election petitioner to state in the petition the PAN number of Kanimozhi's spouse and how the other details furnished about her husband were incomplete or false."Mere bald and vague allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance of the requirement of stating material facts in the Election Petition.".The judgment added that not only positive statement of facts, even a positive statement of negative fact was required to be stated as it would be a material fact constituting a cause of action.Stating that there was no averment made in the election petition as to how there was non-compliance with provisions and as to how it had materially affected the result of the election, the plea was dismissed. .[Read Judgment]
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the election of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader Kanimozhi Karunanidhi in the 2019 general elections from the Thoothukudi Lok Sabha constituency [Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs A Santhana Kumar]..A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi dismissed the election petition filed against Kanimozhi's election and allowed the appeal filed in this regard by Kanimozhi challenging a Madras High Court order declining to quash the election petition."So far as the present petition is concerned, there is no averment made as to how there was non-compliance with provisions of the Constitution or of RP Act or of the Rules or Order made thereunder and as to how such non-compliance had materially affected the result of the election, so as to attract the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, for declaring the election to be void", the court held. .Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing for the appellant, had submitted that the lead election petition, raising grievance over non-mention of her husband's PAN details in her affidavit disclosing assets, had been filed by a voter.It was pointed out that her husband was a foreign national and did not have such a card or any income from activities in India. Further, the respondents had not substantiated their allegations..On the other hand, the respondents argued that Kanimozhi was bound to disclose the details of status of filing of income tax return by her spouse in the foreign country and non-disclosure of the same tantamounted to suppression of facts and non-compliance of the statutory rules. In this regard it was stated that by not disclosing the financial status of her family, she had deprived the opportunity to the voters to decide about the casting of votes..The top court had in January 2020 ordered a stay on proceedings against Kanimozhi in the case, as well as the High Court order under challenge..On examining the election petition, the Court opined that it was obligatory on the part of the election petitioner to state in the petition the PAN number of Kanimozhi's spouse and how the other details furnished about her husband were incomplete or false."Mere bald and vague allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance of the requirement of stating material facts in the Election Petition.".The judgment added that not only positive statement of facts, even a positive statement of negative fact was required to be stated as it would be a material fact constituting a cause of action.Stating that there was no averment made in the election petition as to how there was non-compliance with provisions and as to how it had materially affected the result of the election, the plea was dismissed. .[Read Judgment]
