Chennai, Oct 8:
The Madras High Court on Thursday reserved orders for October 14, on an petition filed by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and TVK Founder Vijay seeking to dismiss the election petition challenging his victory in the Perambur Assembly seat in the April 23 elections.
Aftar hearing the marathon final arguments from Vijay’s counsel on the plea and from the counsel for the respondent to the CM’s plea for the last four days, Mr.Justice.V.Lakshminarayan reserved his orders for October 14 after asking the counsels involved to submit their written submissions by that day.
According to the election petition filed by Perambur voter S.Dinesh, Vijay had failed to disclose full details of his assets and land transactions in his Form 26 nomination affidavit, including a 3-acre land purchase in Panruti village worth Rs.30 crore under the Walajabad sub-registrar office, as well as discrepancies regarding properties in Kodaikanal and a Rs12.6 crore loan in his estranged wife’s name.
Vijay’s counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that he declared assets exceeding Rs.600 crore, making the omission of minor valuation shifts or a Rs.30 crore variance immaterial to voters who already knew of his vast wealth. They contended that non-disclosure of assets differs fundamentally from the non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and does not amount to a corrupt practice or a valid ground to declare an election null and void without proof of direct voter impact.
However, counsel for Dinesh contended that Form 26 disclosures are a mandatory constitutional and statutory obligation under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, rather than a mere formality, and that the election petition should proceed to a full trial.
Vijay won the Perambur seat by a margin of 53,715 votes. Appearing for Vijay, his counsel submitted that all required details had been furnished in the election affidavit and that there had been no suppression of information.
Dinesh’s counsel relied on an earlier Madras High Court ruling which had held that suppression of material information in an election affidavit could influence voters. The counsel also alleged that 50 cents of land at Vilpatti village in Kodaikanal, which Vijay had declared as his property, was recorded as government poromboke land in Revenue Department documents.
The petitioner’s counsel further argued that just as concealing criminal cases in an election affidavit amounted to a violation, suppression of property details was also a violation and could constitute a corrupt practice. Since an election officer could not conduct a detailed inquiry into such allegations at the scrutiny stage, the counsel said the issues should be examined in the election petition and the case should not be dismissed at the threshold.
During the hearing, Justice Lakshminarayanan questioned whether a person alleged to be an encroacher would automatically be barred from contesting an election or incur any disqualification. The judge also pointed out that Vijay had produced the sale deed relating to the Vilpatti property along with his nomination papers.
In response, Dinesh’s counsel said Revenue Department records had been produced to establish that the land was classified as government poromboke land.
Vijay’s counsel argued that the earlier High Court ruling relied upon by the petitioner concerned suppression of information relating to a criminal case. Counsel contended that Vijay’s wealth was already widely known to voters and questioned how an alleged omission concerning property could be said to have influenced their electoral decision.
After hearing the arguments from all sides, the judge reserved orders on Vijay’s petition seeking dismissal of the election plea against his win from Perambur.
Vijay won from two seats Perambur and also from Trichy East. A total of four petitions–three challenging his victory by Perambur voters Dinesh and T.N.Lakshmi Narasimman, and unsuccessful DMK candidate R.D.Sekar and one by unsuccessful DMK candidate S.Inigo Irudayaraj challenging Vijay’s win from Trichy East, which was since vacated by him as he chose to retain Perambur–were filed and the Chief Minister filed pleas seeking the dismissal of all the four election petitions.
Two petitions challenging PWD and Sports Development Minister Aadhav Arjuna’s victory from Vilivakkam seat in Chennai was also filed by DMK candidate Karthik Mohan and voter Sivaraj and the Minister too moved the Court seeking to dismiss the pleas.
It may be noted that in line with the High Court directive, Vijay and Aadhav Arjuna had on August 27 moved the Court seeking dismissal of the poll pleas challenging their victories in the recent elections.
Both Vijay and Aadhav Arjuna filed the petitions after the court, during the August 25 hearing, warned of imposing a cost of Rs 50,000 each on them for seeking repeated adjournments for filing petitions seeking dismissal of the pleas challenging their poll victories. When their counsels sought two more weeks time, the Judge declined the prayer and pointed out that election petitions have to be disposed of within six months under Section 86 of the Representation of the People’s Act.
“The court was not bothered about personalities but only wanted to ensure that the election petitions are decided within six months”, the Judge said, following which counsels for Vijay and Arjuna assured the court that the applications would be filed within two days and requested the court not to impose costs.
Accepting it, the court refrained from imposing costs for the time being and adjourned the hearing to August 27 when both of them filed petitions to dismiss pleas challenging their poll wins.