2024 Supreme(Mad) 2129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
V.M.C.S.Manoharen – Appellant
Versus
M.Nagathiyagarajan – Respondent
Election Petition No.1 of 2021
Decided on : 08-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M/s.Parthiban Patmanabane
For the Respondents: Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, Sr.Counsel for Mr.s.Ganeshkumar
The Model Code of Conduct lacks statutory force and does not constitute grounds for declaring an election void under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(ii) & (iv), 123(2) & (4) - Election petition filed challenging the election of the first respondent on grounds of corrupt practices due to violation of the Model Code of Conduct and the RP Act - The court found that the allegations did not constitute corrupt practices as defined under the Act, and the Model Code of Conduct lacks statutory force - Election petition dismissed. (Paras 19, 20)
(B) Corrupt Practices - Definition and scope - The court clarified that mere violation of the Model Code of Conduct does not amount to corrupt practices under the RP Act, and the election petition must disclose a cause of action under the Act. (Paras 12, 18)
ORDER :
Prayer: Election Petition filed under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(ii) & (iv), 101 (a) & (b), 123(2) & (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 r/w. Rule 2 of the Madras High Court Conduct of Election Petition Rules 1967.
The petitioner has filed this Election Petition under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(ii) & (iv), 101(a)&(b), 123(2) and (4) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 [in short “RP Act”], read with Rule 2 of the Madras High Court Conduct of Election Petition Rules, 1967, praying for the following relief:
(a) Declare the election of the first respondent, a returned candidate from Neravy – T.R.Pattinam constituency in Karaikal at Union Territory of Puducherry on 02.05.2021 as null and void;
(b) Declare the petitioner as the duly elected candidate from Neravy-T.R.Pattinam Constituency in Karaikal at Union Territory of Puducherry;
(c) To pass such further orders.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2.1. The election petitioner is one of the candidates who contested for the general elections at Neravy – T.R. Pattinam Constituency in Karaikkal. The petitioner is a Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP) Candidate and the first respondent is a Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) candidate contested in the general elections of Neravy-T.R.Pattinam Constituency, Union Territory of Puducherry, both being recognized political parties. The respondents 3 to 8 are other party candidates who contested along with the election petitioner and the first respondent.
2.2. On 26.02.2021, the Election Commission of India [in short “ECI”] has announced the Schedule of General Elections to the Legislative Assemblies of Puducherry, 2021. According to the Press Note released by ECI, the notification for the Puducherry Legislative Assembly Constituency will be issued on 12.03.2021 and polling will be held on 06.04.2021. ECI has communicated the provisions of Model Code of Conduct [in short “MCC”] for ensuring peaceful, free and fair election.
2.3. The election petitioner further states that as per Section 39A of the RP Act, 1951 and the MCC issued by the respondents 9 and 10, all activities of canvassing on all forms is permitted till 48 hours before the hour fixed for poll for such election and the canvassing activities have to be completed on 04.04.2021.
2.4. According to the election petitioner, the first respondent, being a contesting candidate, even though fully aware that the time to canvass has ended and any activity in 48 hours before the hour fixed for poll for such election is prohibited under the Act and MCC, in violation of the same, has made a video statement on 05.04.2021 i.e., one day prior to the election date 06.04.2021 and circulated the same to local public by way of Whatsapp video.
2.5. The video statement made through Whatsapp by the first respondent/applicant in the vernacular language reads as follows:
2.6. According to the election petitioner, the act of the first respondent falls within the definition of corrupt practice under Section 123 of RP Act and the same is a ground for declaring the election as void under Section 100 of the RP Act.
2.7. The election petitioner states that immediately a complaint was given by the State Vice President, BJP to the District Election Officer, Karaikkal, Pondicherry, on the same day on 05.04.2021 and subsequently, an FIR was registered in Crime No.0037/2021 by the Station House Officer, T.R.Pattinam Police Station, Karaikkal under Sections 171F and 188 IPC. However, inspite of the complaint, the election was permitted to continue and results were declared declaring the first respondent as the returned candidate. According to the election petitioner, the first respondent has won the election illegally, in violation of the RP Act and MCC and therefore, the election petitioner has filed the Election Petition in ELP.No.1 of 2021 to declare the election as void.
3. The first respondent in the election petition has filed O.A.No.53 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the election petition by denyi