The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Chennai News : Poll rolls: AIADMK petition dismissed

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Dec 22, 2005

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Poll rolls: AIADMK petition dismissed

Special Correspondent

It sought to restrain poll panel from initiating legal action

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition by the AIADMK seeking to restrain the Election Commission from initiating legal action against party functionaries who had submitted voters' applications for inclusion in electoral rolls in bulk.

A Bench comprising Justice R. Balasubramanian and Justice M. Thanikachalam said the petitioner's argument that "any person" in Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) 1950 could only be the person who had made the declaration in Form 6 and not any other person who presented bulk applications, if accepted, would lead to absurdity and defeat the very purpose of introducing Section 31 by the Amending Act 20/1960.

In the petition, AIADMK election wing secretary O. Paneerselvam prayed that if it was found that there was any falsity in Form 6 of individual applicants submitted in bulk by any of the party's functionaries, the latter should not be proceeded against legally.

The Bench said: "Section 31 of the RPA, 1950 as it stands, is wider in its ambit and the significant inclusion is clause (a) as it stands today, which was not available in section 31 as it stood originally."

Clauses (a) and (b) of the section as they stood prior to the Amending Act 20/1960 stood re-drafted as section 31 (b) in the present section.

Therefore clause (a) of the section as it stood today was a new provision. "By the nature of the two provisions of section 31 of RPA, 1950 as it stands today, it is clear to our mind that each is mutually exclusive of the other and both operate in different spheres."

In the Bench's opinion, the person covered under clause (b) would not be prima facie covered under clause (a) of the section as it stood now. If the Act under clause (a) and (b) of the section was one and the same and the person to be held responsible for any violation is also one and the same, there was no need for introducing clause (a) which was disjunctive in nature.

The Bench said its interpretation of Section 31 was well supported by case laws.

Mr. Justice Balasubramanian and Mr. Justice Thanikachalam said it was of the firm opinion that by the guidelines issued by the Election Commission, no new offence was created nor any new set of persons was brought within the purview of section 31 of the RPA, 1950.

Right from its substitution, by the Amending Act 20/1960, Section 31 had brought within its fold not only persons making a claim for inclusion or exclusion containing falsity, but also persons who were presenting such claim on behalf of another person.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu