The Madras High Court on Wednesday held that prima facie there was sufficient evidence to take action against AIADMK leader J Jayalalitha for giving false information while contesting from four constituencies in the 2001 elections to the Tamil Nadu Assembly.
The court asked the Election Commission to take action against her in accordance with the law within six weeks.
A bench comprising Justice Dharmarao Elipe and Justice S Palanivelu gave the order while allowing a PIL from DMK member of Parliament C Kuppusamy who had sought a direction to the Chief Election Commissioner to initiate action against Jayalalitha under Sect 177 IPC for suppressing the fact that she was contesting from four constituencies while filing her nomination papers.
Jayalalitha filed her papers from Andipatti, Dharmapuri, Bhuvanagiri and Pudukottai.
Her papers were rejected in all the constituencies and she was disqualified from contesting that election on the ground that she had been convicted in the Kodaikanal Pleasant Stay Hotel case and had been awarded imprisonment exceeding two years.
Punishment
Under the Representation of the People Act, a person cannot contest simultaneously from more than two Assembly constituencies. Similarly, a candidate convicted of any offence and sentenced to more than two years’ imprisonment is also barred from contesting elections.
Section 177 deals with furnishing false information and entails a maximum punishment of six months’ simple imprisonment and or fine.
Coming down heavily on Jayalalitha, the bench said: “Persons holding high offices/positions should be role models to the general public and if they venture to commit flagrant violations of the rules and laws made, that too knowingly, as in this case, it should not be taken lightly.”
It would send a wrong signal to the public that “laws are meant only for the general public and not for the bigwigs”.
The court said, “The respondents, including the Election Commission, have not acted in the manner required by law.”
There was delay at each and every stage of the consideration of the representations of the petitioner and others against Jayalalitha.
The judges said: “It is a clear case of furnishing false information before a public servant by Ms Jayalalitha.”
Electoral offence
It “squarely falls under section 125-A(ii) of the Representation of the People Act and is definitely an electoral offence.” The Election Commission had clarified to the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, that if Jayalalitha had filed four nomination papers and given declarations that she had not been or would not be nominated as a candidate at the elections from more than two constituencies, she would prima facie, appear to have violated the provisions of section 33(7)(b) of the RPA and made false declaration before returning officers.
The court said the returning officers of Bhuvanagiri and Pudukottai “by circumventing the law”, proved to be more loyal to Jayalalitha (whose party was in power at that time) than to the law of the land.
Rejecting the argument that Kuppusamy had no locus standi, the court said, “Being a political opponent, the petitioner is a vitally interested party.”
The petition lodged by such persons could not be brushed aside on the allegation of a political vendetta, it added.