![]() Friday, Jun 10, 2005 |
| Tamil Nadu | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Entertainment |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Tamil Nadu
Staff Reporter
CHENNAI: The All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) moved the Madras High Court on Thursday, seeking to restrain the Election Commission of India from initiating any legal action against party functionaries who had submitted bulk applications of voters to be included in the electoral rolls. "Under no circumstances can a party, which is permitted to file bulk applications, be held responsible for the correctness of the declarations made therein," said the petition filed on behalf of the party by its election wing secretary, O. Panneerselvam. Admitting the plea, the vacation judge, Justice K. Raviraja Pandian, ordered notice to the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu, returnable by a week.
"No criminal intent"
Stating that errors, if any, in the applications were due to "inadvertence and not with any criminal intent," the petitioner said: "Under no circumstances, can a person who is presenting the bulk applications be termed as one making a statement or categorised as a person making a declaration. Nor can any guilt be fastened on him as if he has made an error in furnishing theirinformation, inasmuch as a political party is taking part in the obligation of democracy for strengthening the effective participation of all eligible voters. That being so, they cannot be penalised by any threat of possible prosecution under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950." Mr. Panneerselvam said the two special representatives of the Commission Tapas Kumar and S.K. Mendiratta did not adhere to the provisions of the Act while verifying the claims of declarants, and added, "instead of following the rule of law and the procedure contemplated under the statutory provisions for verification of the electroal rolls, the representatives rushed through [the process] in the presence of heavy posse of revenue and police officers, and achieved nothing. It only infused a sense of fear among the uneducated rural folks." Maintaining that no proper inquiry was conducted, he said, "no documentary evidence was ever sought, nor were school records verified nor were any public or revenue records asked for by the representatives so as to establish the claim of persons who made the applications in Form-6 for inclusion of their names in the electroal rolls." He said the commission could have extended the period as demanded by some political parties as that would have given more time for verifications. When the matter came up for admission, the Additional Advocate-General and senior counsel, A.L. Somayaji, prayed for a status quo on the matter. Mr. Justice Raviraja Pandian, rejecting the plea, posted the matter after a week when the commission would file its counter. In an identical representation to the commission, Mr. Panneerselvam offered to take part in any personal hearing of the commission, at any place.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Entertainment |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2005, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|