Opinion - Editorials   

False affidavits and political stratagems

When the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, J. Jayalalithaa, filed nomination papers in four constituencies in the 2001 State Assembly election, she knew full well that she was ineligible to contest in even one. Sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment in the TANSI cases (which related to the purchase of Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation land by companies in which she was a partner), Ms Jayalalithaa was prohibited from contesting under the Representation of t he People Act 1951. Section 8(3) of the Act disqualifies from electoral contest any person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment “for not less than two years.” By filing nomination papers in four constituencies against a permissible two, the AIADMK chief, it was widely believed, preferred to court disqualification via a technical flaw rather than the real problem, which arose from her conviction and sentence. This decision has come back to haunt her six years later. With the Election Commission, under the directions of the Madras High Court, ordering the prosecution of Ms. Jayalalithaa for filing false affidavits, the issue has assumed an altogether different dimension.

The Madras High Court, which heard a public interest litigation seeking action against Ms Jayalalithaa, took a dim view of the issue. The Division Bench made it clear it would not treat the case “lightly” when people holding high positions “commit[ed] flagrant violations” of the law and “that too knowingly.” A measure of the court’s strong opinion lay in its censure of two returning officers for failure to initiate action against the former Chief Minister. Under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, the penalty for furnishing false information to a public servant is simple imprisonment for a term that may extend to six months, fine or both. It is unlikely that a similar provision — Section 125A(ii) — in the RP Act 1951 will be invoked, as it came into effect only in 2002, a year after the Assembly election. As the High Court observed, Ms Jayalalithaa’s decision to file four nomination papers does prima facie constitute an electoral offence. But it is necessary to see it in perspective. There was no vitiation of the electoral process as her nomination papers in all four constituencies were rejected. It was only after the Madras High Court acquitted her in both the TANSI cases that she contested (and won) a seat in the Assembly. The AIADMK leader may be hoping that a short spell of imprisonment may win her popular sympathy but the matter may well end up with a fine. The real significance of the court-mandated prosecution lies in the strong signal it sends out to poll contestants — the integrity of the democratic process must not be compromised in any manner.

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

Stories in this Section

False affidavits and political stratagems
Democrats on course
Iraq: Game plan for the endgame?
Software firms spending on land, buildings
Environment and U.S. policy top global fears
Palestinians gift advantage to Israel
Corrections and Clarifications
Super-rich earn more but give more away
Social websites hail arrival of global village
BJP’s bluster
Goodbye Blair
Unethical
Unfair expectations?
Hats off!

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu