The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed an election petition filed by former Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly V.P. Duraisamy of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) challenging the victory of Social Welfare Minister V. Saroja from Rasipuram Assembly constituency in May 2016.
Justice V. Bharathidasan rejected the plea on the ground that neither the allegation regarding inclusion of as many as 20,271 bogus voters in the final electoral list of the constituency nor the allegation of the Minister having indulged in corrupt practices had been proved conclusively through oral and documentary evidence.
The judge said: “The proof for commission of corrupt practices must be clear, cogent, specific and reliable as the charge of a corrupt practice is almost like a criminal charge and the onus is on the person who brings forth that charge to prove it by leading reliable, trustworthy and satisfactory evidence.
“In the instant case, the evidence is hopelessly wanting. The petitioner has come up with vague pleadings and there is absolutely no substantial evidence to prove the allegation of corrupt practices. With the available evidence on record, it is not possible to connect the first respondent (Minister) with any of the alleged corrupt practices.”
Insofar as the allegation of inclusion of bogus voters was concerned, the judge said, it was only a bald allegation made without any particular such as names of the bogus voters, names of the wards or villages where their names had been included in the electoral list and how they came to be included in the list.
“That apart, there is no allegation that it is the first respondent (Minister) who had included all these alleged bogus voters and that all of them had voted for the first respondent. Even assuming that bogus voters had been included in the electoral list, the first respondent cannot be blamed for the same in the absence of any specific pleading and evidence to establish it,” he added.
The judge also said that any discrepancy in the electoral rolls could be challenged only in accordance with procedures contemplated under the Representation of the People Act and not by way of an election petition. On the allegation of the Minister having spent ₹7 lakh to transport 5,000 voters from Rasipuram to a public meeting held at Salem on April 20, 2016, when the then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa introduced 47 candidates of her party to the voters, the judge said, there were no credible materials to substantiate the allegation.
