Back
2011 (2) CTC 276, 2011 (4) MLJ 143
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Sivakumar @ J.K. Ritheesh
Versus
V. Sathiamoorthy & Others
Application No.6915 of 2009 in Election Petition No.1 of 2009
Decided on : 28-02-2011
The High Court dismissed an application filed by the applicant seeking to strike off the election petition filed by the first respondent on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, vagueness, and abuse of process. The court held that the election petition was properly presented before it, that the allegations of corrupt practices were sufficiently specific, and that the applicant was not entitled to strike out the entire election petition.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, who was declared elected as a Member of Parliament, filed an application to strike off the election petition filed by the first respondent, who was a candidate in the same election. The first respondent alleged that the applicant had engaged in corrupt practices, including bribing voters, intimidating opponents, and using government machinery for electoral purposes. The applicant argued that the election petition was not properly presented before the court, that the allegations of corrupt practices were vague and lacking in material particulars, and that the entire election petition should be struck out as an abuse of process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election petition was properly presented before it, as it was filed within the prescribed time limit and before the appropriate court. The court also found that the allegations of corrupt practices were sufficiently specific, as they provided enough detail to allow the applicant to understand the charges against him and to prepare a defense. Finally, the court held that the applicant was not entitled to strike out the entire election petition, as there were some allegations that were sufficiently specific to warrant a trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the election petition was properly presented before the court. 2. Whether the allegations of corrupt practices were sufficiently specific. 3. Whether the applicant was entitled to strike out the entire election petition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the election petition was properly presented before it, as it was filed within the prescribed time limit and before the appropriate court. The court relied on the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which govern the filing of election petitions. 2. The court found that the allegations of corrupt practices were sufficiently specific, as they provided enough detail to allow the applicant to understand the charges against him and to prepare a defense. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, in which the court held that the allegations of corrupt practices must be specific enough to allow the returned candidate to understand the charges against him and to prepare a defense. 3. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to strike out the entire election petition, as there were some allegations that were sufficiently specific to warrant a trial. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Umesh Challiyill v. K.P. Rajendran, in which the court held that the court should not dismiss an election petition at the threshold without giving the petitioner an opportunity to cure any defects in the petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applicant's application to strike off the election petition. The court held that the election petition was properly presented before it, that the allegations of corrupt practices were sufficiently specific, and that the applicant was not entitled to strike out the entire election petition.
1. The applicant herein is the first respondent in the election petition and also a candidate who was declared elected from Ramanathapuram Parliamentary Constituency. The election petition was presented by the first respondent under Sections 80 to 84, 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i)(ii),(iii),(iv), 123(1),(2),(3) (3-A)(4), 135(1), 135-A(e), 65(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and Rule 54A of the Conduct of Election Rules read with Rule 2 of Madras High Court Election Petition Rules, 1967. The election petition was presented on 12.6.2009 by the first respondent. After scrutiny of papers, the matter was allotted to this Court by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
2. When the matter came up on 31.8.2009, this Court admitted the election petition and ordered notice to the respondents. All parties were served either through the court or by substituted service. Accordingly, the first respondent, elected candidate, had entered appearance. He had filed the present Application No.6915 of 2009 under Order 14 Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC to strike off the election petition No.1 of 2009 filed by the first respondent. On notice on this application, a counter affidavit, dated 18.1.2010 was filed by the first respondent / Original election petitioner. The 13th respondent appearing as party-in-person had filed a counter affidavit, dated 1.3.2010. Arguments were heard on various dates. The application was reserved for orders on 27.4.2010. Subsequently, the matter was reposted on 10.2.2011 for certain clarifications. After getting clarifications from the parties, it was again adjourned for delivering the orders in the application.
3. Before proceeding to deal with the allegations made in the application, it is necessary to set out the allegations made in the original Election Petition. The admitted facts in the election petition are as follows:
The election to the 15th Lok Sabha was notified by the Election Commission of India on 23.3.2009. Insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu was concerned, the date of polling was notified on 13.5.2009 and declaration of results was to be made on 16.5.2009. Unlike previous polling, elections were held by exercising franchise through Electronic Voting Machines (for short EVM). In the election held to the Ramanathapuram constituency, the applicant was declared as returned candidate by the 15th respondent under the 17th respondent. It is claimed that the first respondent / the original election petitioner is an Advocate by profession. He was brought into the politics by the former late Chief Minister M.G.Ramachandran. He was a member of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly for the year 1980-1984 for the first term and during 1991-96 for the second term. He was the Chairman of the Panchayat Union Council at Kadaladi during 1986-1990. His worth was noted by the then Chief Minister Selvi J.Jayalalitha. He was inducted as a Minister in her cabinet holding the Commercial Tax Department. He was elected as a Member of Parliament during the year 1998-99. He was also the District Secretary of the AIDAMK party from January, 2009 and held the office of the State Organizing Secretary and State Headquarters Secretary on earlier occasions.
4. He had contested in the election as an official candidate of the AIADMK. The first respondent was hopeful that being a strong candidate, he would get elected in the election. The pre-poll predictions also clearly indicated that he would get elected in the election. Further, for spending money towards election propaganda, a ceiling has been fixed. The applicant had contested the election for the same constituency being an official candidate of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). He was a novice to politics. He had also occasionally acted in some Tamil films. It is the stand of the first respondent that the applicant and his party had spent more than Rs.25 crores in the Ramanathapuram constituency alone and had indulged in large scale of corruption. The police were m
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
