CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has given six weeks time to the Election Commission to initiate action against the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalithaa, under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

Concluding that Ms. Jayalalithaa knowingly made false declarations before two returning officers that she had not been nominated or would not be nominated in more than two constituencies during the 2001 Assembly elections, a Division Bench, comprising Justices Dharmarao Elipe and S. Palanivelu, said: "Even though Ms. Jayalalithaa's term in office has come to an end, the criminality committed while filing nominations in Bhuvanagiri and Pudukottai is not erased, and it has to be probed by initiating prosecution against her."

"No political vendetta"

Mr. Justice Elipe, writing the judgment for the Bench, said the public interest litigation petition had not been filed due to political vendetta or for personal gain or for publicity. "It is a clear case of furnishing of false information before a public servant by Ms. Jayalalithaa, and it squarely falls under Section 125-A(ii) of the Representation of the People Act and is definitely an electoral offence."

Coming down heavily on the returning officers of Bhuvanagiri and Pudukottai, the Bench said that it was at a loss to understand their "silence." A piquant situation had arisen for them when Ms. Jayalalithaa became their "administrative boss." Ignoring the fact that they must be loyal only to the law of the land, the officials might have been too loyal to Ms. Jayalalithaa, it observed.

PIL petition

The judges were passing orders on the PIL petition filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam MP C. Kuppusamy, seeking to direct the Election Commission to initiate criminal proceedings against Ms. Jayalalithaa.

Mr. Kuppusamy said she had rendered herself liable for punishment under Section 177 (furnishing false information to a public servant) of the IPC. The offence is punishable with imprisonment up to six months or fine or both.

Ms. Jayalalithaa, in her counter-affidavit, said that Mr. Kuppusamy did not have any locus standi and that the matter was barred by limitation.

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