In a relief to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader Kanimozhi, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld her 2019 election to the Lok Sabha from Tamil Nadu's Thoothukudi, dismissing as "bald and vague" the allegations levelled against her in a petition challenging her election.
Kanimozhi's election was challenged by a voter, A Sanathana Kumar, on the ground that she failed to mention her husband's Permanent Account Number in her election affidavit disclosing the family assets.
The Madras high court had earlier rejected Kanimozhi's plea seeking dismissal of two election petitions filed by the voter and a Bharatiya Janata Party leader separately challenging her election.
A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi said mere "bald and vague" allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance of the requirement of stating material facts in the election petition.
"There is no averment made as to how there was non-compliance with provisions of the Constitution or of Representation of the People Act, or of the Rules or Order made thereunder and as to how such non-compliance had materially affected the result of the election," the bench said, adding the omission to state such vital and basic facts has rendered the petition liable to be dismissed.
Setting aside the high court order, the top court said section 83(1)(a) of RP Act, 1951 mandates that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies.
If material facts are not stated in an election petition, the same is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone, it said.
"If according to the election petitioner, the appellant had suppressed the PAN of her spouse and also about the non-payment of income tax of her spouse in the foreign country, it was obligatory on the part of the Election petitioner to state in the Election petition as to what was the PAN of the spouse of the returned candidate in India which was suppressed by her and how the other details furnished about her husband in the said Form No. 26 (candidate's assets) were incomplete or false," the bench said.
The apex court said at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper and the affidavit in the Form 26 furnished by Kanimozhi, neither any objection was raised, nor the returning officer had found any lapse or non-compliance of rules.
"Assuming that the election petitioner did not have the opportunity to see the Form No. 26, when she submitted the same to the Returning Officer, and assuming that the returning officer had not properly scrutinised the nomination paper, and assuming that the election petitioner had a right to question the same by filing the Election petition... then also there are no material facts stated in the petition constituting cause of action," the bench said.
It said an election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which petitioner relies, and which facts constitute a cause of action.
"Such facts would include positive statement of facts as also positive averment of negative fact. Omission of a singular fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action," it said.
While dismissing Kanimozhi's plea, the high court had said the election petitioner must be given a chance to marshal evidence to prove his claim of improper acceptance of nomination.
The DMK leader had said her husband was an NRI living in Singapore and he neither possessed a PAN card nor did he pay income tax in India.
Kanimozhi had defeated her nearest rival Tamilisai Soundararajan (now the Governor of Telangana) of the BJP.
Another plea challenging the election of Kanimozhi was filed by Soundararajan, who withdrew it after becoming the Governor of Telangana.
A Muthuramalingam, a local BJP leader, has substituted Soundararajan as a party in the high court.
