Supreme Court halts Madras HC’s decision nullifying AIADMK MP’s election and OPS’s son, P. Ravindranath.

Supreme Court Stays Madras High Court Order Declaring MP Ravindranath’s Election Null and Void

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the order of the Madras High Court that declared the 2019 Lok Sabha election of P. Ravindranath, son of former Tamil Nadu CM O Paneerselvan and the sole Member of Parliament from the AIADMK party, null and void. The Apex Court has allowed him to continue as a Member of Parliament until further orders from the Court.

Appeal Admitted, Final Hearing on 4th October 2023

A division bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta admitted the appeal filed by Ravindranath and issued notice. The matter has been posted to 4th October 2023, for final hearing.

Representation by Senior Lawyers

The petitioner was represented by a battery of senior lawyers KK Venuogpal, Kapil Sibal and Jayant Bhushan. Adv. Avi Tandon, Adv. Sharan Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ketan Paul, AOR also appeared for the petitioner.

Background of the Case

Last month, the Madras High Court had declared his election null and void. The High Court had however kept the order in abeyance for a month, to enable appeal against the order. P Ravindranath was the lone candidate of the AIADMK-NDA coalition to succeed in the 2019 Constituency Election from Theni Constituency.

Allegations and Judgment

Justice SS Sundar of the Madras High Court passed the order on an election petition filed by P Milany, a voter from the constituency, who had challenged his election on the ground of suppression of sources of income and bribing of voters. Milany had submitted that the MP had mentioned only agriculture and business as his sources of income and not disclosed the income that he received as the director of a private company. He added that assets, investments, sources of income, shares, financial loans and liabilities were suppressed in the affidavit filed by Ravindranath at the time of nomination. Milany had also submitted a CD containing video evidence, circulated during the election, allegedly showing voters being bribed.

The High Court noted that as per Section 123 of the Representation of The People Act 1951, the person who alleges bribery should establish such bribery by way of gift, offer or promise, by a candidate or his agent or by any person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. In the present case, the High Court had observed that though Milany had alleged bribery by a lady, he could not establish that she was performing such acts as an agent of Ravindranath.

With respect to non-disclosure, the High Court was satisfied that Ravindranath had not disclosed his assets correctly. The High Court also refused to accept Ravindranath’s explanation that the discrepancy was a result of a typographical error. The High Court further observed that if such discrepancies were condoned in the absence of an explanation or supporting document, it would go against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court to save democracy as part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

High Court’s Observations on Returning Officer

The High Court had added that the Returning Officer had failed to conduct the scrutiny of nomination as required under Section 36 of the Act and as per the instructions given in the handbook. Thus, the High Court observed that she had shown a partisan attitude in favor of Ravindranath.

Order Kept in Abeyance

After declaring the election as null and void, Senior Counsel AK Sriram, appearing for Ravindranath, had urged the High Court to keep the order in abeyance till an appeal is preferred. The High Court acceded to this request and said that the order will be in abeyance till a period of 30 days.