HC upholds Vijayakant’s election from Rishivandiyam

Petitioner’s case was that her nomination was unjustly rejected

: The Madras High Court on Friday upheld the election of DMDK leader Vijayakant from the Rishivandiyam Assembly constituency in Villupuram district in the elections held in 2011.

In the order, dismissing an election petition, Justice K.Venkataraman said the nomination paper filed by the election petitioner was non est (does not exist) in law and not a valid one as per Section 33 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951.

The petitioner, M.Jayanthi, prayed the court to declare the Returning Officer’s order of March 28, 2011 rejecting her nomination as improper and also set aside the election of Mr.Vijayakant from the constituency. Her case was that her nomination was unjustly rejected.

Mrs.Jayanthi submitted that on March 26, she filed nomination papers as an independent candidate along with all documents, including the signatures of 10 proposers and the voters list of the proposers. On March 28, on scrutiny, the Returning Officer told her that he was going to reject her nomination on the ground that the proposers’ signatures and names were not clearly mentioned; their serial numbers in the voters list had not been clearly mentioned and also the proposers’ left-hand thumb impression had not been obtained.

Immediately, she gave all the particulars regarding the proposers. She sought two days time to file objection for the defects and said her nomination should not be rejected. However, the Returning Officer rejected it. Had her nomination been accepted, she would have won the election, she said.

The question before the court was whether the rejection of the petitioner’s nomination was valid or not. Mr.Justice Venkataraman said it was clear that Mrs.Jayanthi had not presented her nomination papers on March 26 as per the requirement under Clause (1) of Section 33 of the RPA. She had not presented the papers in order regarding the 10 proposers, their part numbers and serial numbers.

The petitioner was not definite that she filed the nomination paper in accordance with the law and that she had rectified the defects pointed out by the Returning Officer. On the one hand, it was stated that she filed the nomination in accordance with RPA and on the other hand, the defects had been cured. Further, it was the petitioner’s case that she sought time to rectify the defects, but, however, time was not granted. “Therefore, the stand taken by the election petitioner is too different.”

At least, three proposers had affixed their thumb impression in the nomination paper. But the same were not attested in a manner known to law. The defect was a substantial one, which could not be cured.

The Returning Officer had rightly rejected Mrs.Jayanthi’s election petition, which did not call for any court interference, Mr.Justice Venkataraman said.