SC quashes petition challenging election of DMK MP Kanimozhi in 2019 Lok Sabha polls

Her election was challenged by a voter, A Sanathana Kumar, on grounds that she failed to mention her husband's Permanent Account Number (PAN) in her election affidavit disclosing family assets.
DMK MP Kanimozhi. (File Photo | Ashwin Prasath, EPS)
DMK MP Kanimozhi. (File Photo | Ashwin Prasath, EPS)

NEW DELHI:  DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi breathed a sigh of relief as the Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the election petitions challenging her election from Thoothukudi Lok Sabha constituency in the 2019 general elections.

The bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi said that petitioners who had filed the election petition had made very bald and vague allegations without stating material facts as to how there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution of India or Representation of People’s Act. 

“Mere bald and vague allegations without any basis would not be sufficient compliance of the requirement of stating material facts in the Election Petition. As well settled not only positive statement of facts, even a positive statement of negative fact is also required to be stated, as it would be a material fact constituting a cause of action.

The material facts which are primary and basic facts have to be pleaded by the Election petitioner in support of the case set up by him to show his cause of action and omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action, entitling the returned candidate to pray for dismissal of Election petition under Order VII Rule 11 (a) CPC read with Section 83 (1) (a) of the RP Act,” the bench said in its order.

DMK leader had approached SC against Madras HC’s November 19, 2019 order of refusing to dismiss election petitions challenging her election. The election petitions were filed by a voter and a BJP leader separately alleging that Kanimozhi failed to mention her husband’s Permanent Account Number (PAN) in her election affidavit disclosing family assets. 

She in her plea before the SC had contended that she was only required to disclose her Husband’s nationality and not if he holds a PAN account, in her election affidavit. It was also contended in her plea that she had clearly mentioned that her spouse did have a PAN number. Without these averments, the bald and vague statement that the petitioner has not provided her spouse’s PAN cannot be maintained in an election petition in light of several judgments of the SC.

Related Stories

No stories found.

The New Indian Express