Madras High Court
K.R.Ramaswamy Alias Traffic Ramaswamy vs The Chief Election Commissioner
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 23.04.2015
Delivered on: 29.04.2015
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
Election Petition Diary No.22137 of 2014
K.R.Ramaswamy alias Traffic Ramaswamy,
Social Activist/President,
Makkal Padukappu Kazhagam,
No.223A, NSC Bose Road,
Chennai-600 001. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Election Commissioner,
Nirvachan Sadhan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi-110 001.
2.The Chief Electoral Officer of Taminadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
3.The Chief Secretary,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
4.The Secretary to Govt.,
Home Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
5.The Returning Officer,
Chennai South Constituency,
Joint Commissioner,
O/o. Corporation of Chennai,
Adyar, Chennai-600 010. .. Respondents
Prayer: Election Petition filed under Sections 80 to 84 and Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (a) to declare the imposition of Section 144 of CrPC prohibition orders throughout the State by the second respondent before the polling day of 24.04.2014 in the 39 constituencies of the Tamilnadu for the general elections of Lok Sabha 2014 as improper and illegal, (2) to declare the election result announced by the 2nd respondent to the 39 constituencies of general elections for Lok Sabha -2014 held on 24.04.2014 as null, void and invalid; and (3) to direct the respondents 2nd and 5th to pay the cost of the election petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Ramaswamy/Party-in-Person
O R D E R
The petitioner/Party-in-Person claims to be a social activist and President of Makka Padukappu Kazhagam, Chennai-600 001 and has filed this election petition under Sections 80 to 84 and Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [in short RP Act], declaring that the imposition of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which prohibits assembling throughout the State by the second respondent on the polling day of 24.04.2014 in the 39 constituencies of the Tamil Nadu for the general elections for the year 2014, as improper and illegal with consequential declaration to declare the results announced in respect of the above said constituency as null, void and invalid and also for cost to be payable by the respondents 2 to 5. The petitioner would state that laws relating to election more particularly from campaigning to the announcement of results are violated by political parties and enforcement officials in the State had acted with bias and malice. He would further state that the second respondent has clamped prohibitory orders throughout the State on 22.04.2014 ending on 24.04.2014 between 6.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. to check money distribution and to maintain law and order. It is further stated by the petitioner that the second respondent, through press media, confessed on 08.05.2014 that the distribution of money has not been curtailed and not controlled during the said period and whenever and wherever the ruling party go for campaign, they are openly encouraged by the second respondent without taking cognizance thereof and left them to roam around free and distribute money throughout 39 constituencies to influence voters. The petitioner, in this regard, has also filed W.P.No.13770/2014 praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Chief Election Commissioner to pass orders on his representation dated 30.04.2014 and the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.06.2014. The petitioner, in support of his plea, placed reliance upon newspaper reports and photographs taken during campaigning and therefore, came forward to file this election petition for the aforesaid relief.
2. The Registry of this Court, after going through the election petition filed by the petitioner, pointed out the following defects:
(1) Petitioner contested in Chennai South Lok Sabha Constituency as an independent candidate and lost the election. As per Section 81(1) of the RP Act, he can file election petition only in respect of South Chennai Lok Sabha Constituency alone but he has filed the above Election Petition calling in question the Election to all 39 Lok Sabha Constituencies in Tamil Nadu. Hence, this petition is not maintainable.
(2) As per Section 81(1) of the RP Act, an Election Petition calling in question any election can be presented by any candidate to such elections or any elector, who was entitled to vote as the election to which the election petition relates. Mr.Traffic Ramasamy was not a candidate of all 39 Lok Sabha Constituencies. He was not an elector of all 39 Constituencies. Hence this petition is not maintainable.
(3) As per Section 17 of the RP Act 1950 no person to be registered as voter in more than one constituencies. Mr.Traffic Ramasamy is not entitled to calling in question the election to all 39 constituencies by filing a single election petition.
(4) As per Section 86(1) of the RP Act 1951 the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 of RP Act, 1951.
and opined that in the light of the above provisions of the RP Act, 1951, the election petition is not maintainable.
3. The petitioner, in response to the objections raised by the Registry, submitted his reply dated 20.08.2014 stating that Section 82 of the RP Act empowers the petitioner to question not only the irregularities took place in his constituency but in other constituencies and tried to draw a parallel by stating that if one Chief Minister candidate contested the election from two constituencies and so also one National Leader and not elected in both constituencies and thereby wasting the public money and therefore, would contend that the election petition is maintainable.
4. The petitioner/Party-in-Person made his submissions based on the contents of the election petition as well as reply to the objections raised by the Registry and would contend that since the irregularities were allowed to took place under the garb of prohibitory orders, which in-turn vitiate the entire election, the election petition is perfectly maintainable and prays for allowing the election petition purely on merits.
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the petitioner/Party-in-Person and also gone through the materials placed before it.
6. It is well settled position of law that newspaper reports is only an hearsay evidence and no judicial notice can be taken unless supported by further authenticate evidence. Most of the supporting documents filed along with the election petition are in the form of newspaper reports. It is relevant to extract Sections 81 to 83 of the RP Act, which reads as follows:
81. Presentation of petitions.- (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 100 and section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector [within forty-five days from, but not earlier than, the date of election of the returned candidate, or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.] Explanation.- In this sub-section, elector means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voted as such election or not.
82.Parties to the petition.- A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition.- (a) Where the petitioner, in addition to claiming declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition.
83.Contents of petition.- (1) An election petition- (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
[Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.] (2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition.
7. It is trite law that burden which lies on an election petitioner to prove the allegations made by him in the election petition whether the same relate to commission of any corrupt practice or proof of any other ground urged in support of the petition has to be discharged by him at the time of trial and the election of a successful candidate is not lightly interfered with by the Courts and the Courts generally lean in favour of the returned electoral contest. The election which is vitiated by reason of corrupt practices, illegalities and irregularities enumerates in Sections 100 and 123 of the RP Act cannot obviously be recognised and respected as the decision of the majority of the electorate. [See Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy & Ors., 2012 (6) Scale 207].
8. It is also essential for the election petitioner to aver by pleading material facts that the result of the election insofar as it concerned the returned candidate has been materially affected by such breach or non-observance. If the election petition goes to trial then then the election petitioner has also to prove the charge of breach or non-compliance as well as establish that the result of the election has been materially affected and it is only on the basis of such pleading and proof that the Court may be in a position to form opinion and record a finding that breach or non-compliance of the provisions of the Constitution or RP Act or any rules or orders made thereunder has materially affected, the result of the election before the election of the returned candidate could be declared void and a mere non-compliance or breach of the Constitution or statutory provisions by itself does not result in invalidating the election of a returned candidate. [See Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari, 2012(2) Scale 363]. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.A.Mohammed Riyas v. M.K.Raghavan and Others [(2012) 5 MLJ 637 (SC)].
9. As already pointed out, the pleadings are very vague and primary reliance is placed only on newspaper reports. It is also to be pointed out at this juncture that the petitioner contested as a candidate in respect of South Chennai Lok Sabha constituency, however has filed this election petition challenging the selection of 39 returned candidates who were elected to Lok Sabha. It was also pointed out that there were 39 electorate constituencies and under Section 17 of the RP Act, he is not entitled to calling in question the election of Members of Parliament elected from the State by filing a single election petition. The Registry has also further observed that unless and until the petitioner complies with Section 81 of the RP Act, it is liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the RP Act.
10. In the light of the above cited reasons, this Court is of the view that the election petition framed by the petitioner is not maintainable and therefore, upholds the objections raised by the Registry.
11. In the result, this Election Petition Diary No.22137 of 2014 is rejected. No costs.
29.04.2015 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No jvm To
1.The Chief Election Commissioner, Nirvachan Sadhan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110 001.
2.The Chief Electoral Officer of Taminadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
3.The Chief Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
4.The Secretary to Govt., Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
5.The Returning Officer, Chennai South Constituency, Joint Commissioner, O/o. Corporation of Chennai, Adyar, Chennai-600 010.
M.SATHYANARAYANAN. J jvm Order in Elect.P.Diary No.22137 of 2014 29.04.2015