Chennai: In 2006, R. Chinnasamy, elected from Singanallur Assembly constituency, was a cynosure of all eyes in Madras high court. The trade union leader was regularly attending the proceedings in a court hall packed with a large number of persons.
Accompanied by a group of followers, the two-time legislator, attired in white dhoti and shirt, occupied a large space on a bench in the visitors’ gallery regularly.
Advocates never missed grin on his face when the court witnessed heated arguments challenging election of M. Chandra to Rajapalayam (Reserved) Assembly constituency.
This was only till Justice C. Nagappan set aside the election of Chandra in December 2008. The petitioner M. Thangamuthu, one of the candidates, alleged that Chandra contested on AIADMK symbol by falsely representing that she belonged to SC community, suppressing the fact that she was a Christian.
However, in September 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the high court order. The Constitution permitted only SC and ST persons following Hinduism, Sikhism, Budhism to contest in the election in the reserved constituencies. However, many persons hailing from other communities contest in the poll as reserved candidates.
Chinnasamy’s attitude changed soon after the high set aside the election of the MLA. He realised the high court’s power in cancelling the Assembly poll. Since then he realised his place in the court hall and began to speak with advocates courteously. A few months later, the court passed order in his favour.
Just like Chinnasamy, people have not realised the significance of judiciary in dealing with election-related litigation. Not many people affected by the election related issues approach HC seeking justice. They see no point in going to HC to seek justice as the matter drags on for years.
After 2011 Assembly poll, only 15 election petitions were filed in HC. The May 2016 Assembly election witnessed violations right from preparation of voters list, selection of candidates, filing of nomination papers, campaigning on the polling day and during counting of votes and announcement of the winner. Only 33 cases were registered across the state.
Having lost hope in the judiciary and gruelling process in filing election litigation only 23 petitioners, including former Radhapuram DMK MLA M. Appavu, VCK leader Thol Thirumavalavan, S.M. Avadi Naser, V.P. Duraisamy, Anita R. Radhakrishnan, approached the court with election petitions.
The object of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was to maintain purity and to prevent corrupt practices in the election process.
However, over the years, parties, including independent candidates, violated basic principles of the Constitution, law and democracy.
The Election Commission cancelled election to Aravakurichi and Thanjavur Assembly constituencies after large-scale violation reported during the electioneering.
‘Cumbersome procedure in filing election petition’
Elucidating about the cumbersome procedure in filing the election petition, advocate U.M. Ravichandran said, “Filing this petition is as grueling as campaigning and fighting the polls”. The Act permits a person to approach the court within 45 days of counting. If a candidate, who lost the election, prays the HC to declare him a winner after setting aside the election of the returned candidate, he should file the petition in 14 days after the counting.
The petitioner must visit the court personally to file the petition and he has to serve copies to all the respondents, including officials. He must substantiate the facts paragraph wise and how he came to know about the facts.
The petitioner should affix his signature on every paper in all the affidavits/documents even without minor difference. Even minor mistake in his signature would lead to dismissal of the petition at the admission stage itself.
Petitioner cannot make wild allegations against winner and all allegations must be accompanied with required factual matter.
He also should declare where, when and how he obtained the information/facts mentioned in the petition. A petition filed by a leader was dismissed for not submitting CD and photograph to a respondent.
A large number of election petitions filed was dismissed at the admission stage itself. After admission, the Chief Justice will assign the matter to a judge.
V.P.R. Elamparithi, an advocate, said criminalisation of politics has become an all-pervasive phenomenon over the years. Several burning issues hampering the democratic process and poisoning process.
Money plays a central role in elections now. Financing of election exceeding the legal limit, booth capturing, intimidation of voters and buying them have become common phenomenon. Electoral rolls are tampered and abuse of religion and caste was also rampant.
He suggested during the electioneering, special courts should be set up in Tiruchy, Salem and Coimbatore to dispose of petitions before the date of poll. Future amendments to Constitution must be aimed at speedy disposal of petitions by the court from the beginning and use the assistance of social media and Internet to conduct the election in a smooth and transparent manner”.
Speaking to Deccan Chronicle, M. Appavu, said “I was maintaining a lead up to 18th round during the counting of votes polled in Radhapuram constituency. However, officials played spoil sport after the 18th round.
They clandestinely announced the AIADMK candidate as the winner with a margin of 49 votes”. “I have filed the petition recently and hope I receive justice early.”
