Supreme Court stays HC verdict quashing election victory of lone Lok Sabha AIADMK MP P Ravindranath Kumar

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Madras High Court ruling that had quashed the 2019 election of Theni Lok Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) P Ravindranath Kumar, the lone All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AAIADMK) MP from Tamil Nadu [P Ravindranath vs P Milany and ors].A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta also issued notice in the matter and posted the case for hearing next on October 4.Kumar is the son of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Panneerselvam.Senior Advocates KK Venugopal, Kapil Sibal and Jayant Bhushan and advocates Sharan Thakur, Ketan Paul and Avi Tandon appeared for Kumar.Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul with advocate Kartik Seth appeared for the complainant, P Milany, on caveat..The AIADMK leader moved the Supreme Court challenging a Madras High Court order from last month. The High Court had set aside the 2019 general assembly election of Kumar from Theni in Tamil Nadu.Kumar was the only candidate belonging to the AIADMK-NDA alliance to win the 2019 Lok Sabha polls in Tamil Nadu. The DMK-led alliance had won the remaining 38 of the 39 seats.In a July 6 ruling, Justice SS Sundar of the High Court had held that Kumar suppressed his income in his election affidavit and that the returning officer had erred in accepting his nomination despite such suppression.The High Court, however, had stayed the operation of its order for a month to allow Kumar to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. The said protection was set to expire on Friday.The High Court's order had come on a petition filed by one, Milany, who alleged that Kumar suppressed his assets and liabilities in Form 26 of his election affidavit filed under Rule 4A of Conduct of Election Rules,1961. He also claimed that Kumar had indulged in corrupt practices including giving cash in exchange for votes in his favour.Milany, who claimed to be a voter from Theni, added that Kumar only disclosed agriculture and business as his income sources, and chose to exclude money that he had received as remuneration for serving as a Director of a private company.Justice Sundar had held that while the petitioner (Milany) had failed to establish the allegation of bribery and corrupt practices on Kumar's part, evidence on record and examination of witnesses had proved that Kumar had deliberately suppressed information in his election affidavit.He had also come down upon the returning officer for her partisan attitude.The single judge further refused to accept Kumar's argument that the alleged discrepancies were a result of typographical error.