Madras High Court upholds Stalin's 2011 election victory in Kolathur

CHENNAI: The Madras high court has upheld the election of DMK working president M.K. Stalin from the Kolathur assembly constituency during the state Assembly election held on April 13, 2011.

Justice M. Venugopal dismissed the election petition filed by defeated AIADMK candidate Saidai Duraisamy, who sought to declare the election of DMK candidate Stalin as null and void and consequently to declare him as duly elected from the constituency.

A perusal of the averments made by the petitioner in his election petition, this court comes to an irresistible conclusion that there was no categorical averment that Stalin had given his consent to his party functionaries to bribe the voters. Moreover, a consent in law cannot be inferred even from the mere knowledge alone. Apart from that, Stalin cannot be held even vicariously liable for the alleged act of his party functionaries/workers in bribing the voters and self-help group members at Eswari Hospital when the same was done without his consent, the judge added.

The judge said in regard to the allegation of money distribution by the Stalin’s party by adopting “Thirumangalam formula” in a novel way of community feedings, courier service, currency in the newspaper, Arathi plate contributions and slips to the voters to purchase consumer items, this court points out that there was no convincing, satisfactory and acceptable proof produced on the side of the petitioner and as such, it is held by this court that the same remains unproved.

The judge said the petitioner has indulged in vague allegations of “corrupt practice” and it was to be pointed out that mere surmises or conjectures would not be sufficient to constitute corrupt practice. Moreover, the allegations of corrupt practice made by the petitioner in regard to incurring of election expenses (more than permissible limits) against Stalin were made based on mere lurking assumption or presumption or suspicion and simmering doubt and not rested on unambiguous, clear-cut, specific, cogent, coherent and convincing evidence of sterling unimpeachable/un-assailing character, as opined by the court, the judge added.