In a victory for Tamil Nadu’s ruling party, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the election of DMK leader Kanimozhi Karunanidhi as a Member of Parliament from Thoothukudi Lok Sabha constituency in 2019.
A Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela Trivedi dismissed the election petition against Ms. Karunanidhi, represented by senior advocate P. Wilson, and allowed her appeal.
The apex court had stayed the election petition proceedings in the Madras High Court in 2020.
The stay was granted by the Supreme Court on the appeal filed by Ms. Kanimozhi against the High Court’s decision to examine a petition filed by A. Santhana Kumar challenging her election.
Ms. Kanimozhi had argued that the High Court erroneously banked on a petition which was at best “vague and without material facts”.
Mr. Wilson had argued that Mr. Kumar, in his election petition, had not brought a single material fact to substantiate his case that Ms. Kanimozhi’s nomination was improper. In fact, the senior lawyer had argued that the election petition contained hollow allegations.
The High Court had proceeded on the notion that Ms. Kanimozhi refused to disclose the Permanent Account Number (PAN) of her spouse. Ms. Kanimozhi had submitted that her nomination records had clearly stated that her husband did not have a PAN card.
“The petitioner (Kanimozhi) has clearly mentioned that her spouse does not have a PAN number. If the first respondent (Kumar) herein contends that this statement is wrong, he ought to substantiate the allegation that the statement is incorrect. Without these averments, the bald and vague statement that petitioner has not provided her spouse’s PAN cannot be maintained in an election petition in light of several judgments of the Supreme Court,” the petition had noted.
Ms. Kanimozhi had even asked whether it was justified on the part of the High Court to add averments in the election petition as regards the petitioner’s husband’s income tax reference number.
“When even the election petitioner does not make an averment that the petitioner’s spouse possesses a PAN card or any such card in Singapore, whether it was correct on part of the High Court to frame such an allegation?” Mr. Wilson had contended during the case hearings.
