'Bald and vague allegations', Supreme Court junks petition challenging DMK leader Kanimozhi's election

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday junked an election petition challenging the election of DMK MP Kanimozhi from Tamil Nadu's Thoothukudi constituency in 2019.

Kanimozhi's 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.

A bench comprising justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi allowed the appeal filed by DMK leader against the Madras High Court order, which refused to dismiss the petition against her election. "In that view of the matter, election petition...filed by the respondent-election petitioner deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appeals stand allowed accordingly," said the top court.

The top court noted that at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper and the affidavit in the Form 26 furnished by the appellant-returned candidate, neither any objection was raised, nor the returning officer had found any lapse or non-compliance of Section 33 or Rule 4A of the Rules (Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961).

The bench said if according to the respondent-election petitioner, the appellant-returned candidate 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 the PAN of the spouse of the returned candidate in India which was suppressed by her. Also, how the other details furnished about her husband in the said Form No. 26 were incomplete or false, it added.

Justice Trivedi, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, 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. As well settled not only positive statements 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 bench observed that assuming that the election petitioner did not have the opportunity to see the Form No. 26 filled in by the appellant-returned candidate, when she submitted the same to the returning officer. It continued assuming that the returning officer had not properly scrutinised the nomination paper of the appellant, and assuming that the election petitioner had a right to question the same by filing the election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People's Act, 1951, then also there are no material facts stated in the petition constituting cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act.

"In absence of material facts constituting cause of action for filing election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the said Act, the election petition is required to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Section 13(1)(a) of the RP Act," said justice Trivedi.

The bench stressed that the respondent has made very bald and vague allegations without stating the material facts as to how there was non-compliance of any of the provisions of the Constitution or of the RP Act or of the rules made.