Madras High Court sets aside 2019 election of OPS' son and lone AIADMK MP P Ravindranath Kumar from Theni

The Madras High Court Thursday set aside the 2019 election of the All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) P Ravindranath Kumar from the Theni Lok Sabha constituency in Tamil Nadu..Kumar was the only candidate belonging to the AIADMK-NDA alliance to win the 2019 Lok Sabha polls in Tamil Nadu. The DMK led alliance had won the remaining 38 of the 39 seats.Justice SS Sundar held that Kumar, who is the son of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Panneerselvam, had suppressed his income in his election affidavit and that the returning officer had erred in accepting his nomination despite such suppression. The Court, however, stayed the operation of its order for a month to allow Kumar to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. .The Court's order came on a petition filed by one P Milany, alleging that Kumar suppressed his assets and liabilities in Form 26 of his election affidavit filed under Rule 4A of Conduct of Election Rules,1961. He also alleged that Kumar had indulged in corrupt practices including giving cash in exchange for votes in his favour. Milany, who claimed to be a voter from Theni, alleged that Kumar only disclosed agriculture and business as his income sources, and chose to exclude money that he had received as remuneration for serving as a Director of a private company..Justice Sundar held that while the petitioner had failed to establish the allegation of bribery and corrupt practices on Kumar's part, evidence on record and examination of witnesses had proved that Kumar had deliberately suppressed information in his election affidavit. It also came down upon the returning officer for her partisan attitude. "This Court, from the facts as seen from the documents and evidence, finds that the returning officer has not conducted the scrutiny of nominations strictly in terms of Section 36 of the RP Act, 1951 and instructions given under the Hand Book. She has shown her partisan attitude in favour of 3rd respondent at the time of scrutiny. As a consequence, this Court holds that the nomination of 3rd respondent (Kumar) has been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer," the Court said. It also refused to accept Kumar's argument that the alleged discrepancies were a result of typographical error. The Court further said that condoning such non-disclosure will go against the "spirit in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid principles to save the democracy as part of basic structure of our Constitution."."The Returned Candidate has shown the value of his movable assets at ₹4,16,27,224. But, he has disclosed the movable assets to the value of ₹1,35,30,394. This false disclosure is explained by an affidavit which cannot be accepted as it was not there when the 3rd respondent's nomination was accepted. An explanation that such huge discrepancy was a typographical mistake cannot be readily accepted especially disclosure by over-valuing assets may be with a purpose," the Court said..Advocate V Arun appeared for the petitioner P Milany. Senior Counsel AK Sriram and G Prakash Kumar appeared for Kumar..[Read Order]