SC adjourns hearing in case against Stalin’s 2011 poll win

The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of the appeal filed by Saidai Duraisamy, who accused Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin and the ruling DMK party of indulging in corrupt practices ahead of the 2011 Assembly elections from Kolathur constituency, citing lack of clarity and structure in the presentation of material details in their pleas.

A Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi adjourned the hearing in the case of Mr. Duraisamy, who alleged that the party used its officials and money to attract voters through innovative methods, which amounted to corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act.

The Madras High Court had dismissed the allegations made by Mr. Duraisamy in 2017, citing lack of conclusive evidence.

The Board, which heard the objection, said that it could not analyze the findings in the decision. It was stated that Mr. Duraisamy’s side, led by senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, has been asked to prepare short arguments, a schedule of documents relied upon, materials in connection with the findings and others. “No such thing has been provided,” the Bench said. At one point, Justice Maheshwari, visibly upset, said: “This is not the only case in India.”

The court cleared the trial panel for two days next week to hear the case. Mr. Stalin and other participants are represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, NR Elango Shanmughasunadaram and Amit Anand Tiwari.

The electoral law required that a case alleging corrupt practices be proven beyond reasonable doubt under Article 123 of the RP Law; because such allegations, if found true, would result in a criminal investigation. A mere “preponderance of probabilities” will not be sufficient to establish the existence of electoral fraud.

During the hearing, the court said it was not possible that a candidate could be “presumed” to have consented to corrupt practice under Section 123. Explicit consent must be proven by the petitioner. At one point, frustrated with the case, Bench said, “If you have difficulty proving it, we will throw out the case.”

Section 83 of the RP Act mandated that an election petition must contain a brief statement of the material facts relied upon by the petitioner. The provision required the petition to “set forth the full details of any corrupt practices alleged by the petitioner, including the names of the parties alleged to have engaged in such corrupt practices and a description as complete as possible of the date and place on which each such practice occurred.”

Mr. Duraisamy had said that the DMK party was using the ‘Thirumangalam Formula’ to provide money to voters in a new way through community feeds, courier service, currency in newspapers and vouchers to buy consumer products. A cargo transport vehicle was caught with a vehicle containing money boxes.

The Supreme Court had come to the “irresistible conclusion that there is no categorical allegation that the first defendant (Mr. Stalin) consented to party officials to bribe voters and self-help group members for the purpose of encouraging the evil act of ‘corrupt practice'”. He said Mr Stalin could not be held “indirectly responsible” for the alleged actions of party officials.

“As regards the allegation that the first defendant’s party is distributing money by adopting the Thirumangalam Formula in a new way like community feeds, courier service, currency in newspaper, Arathi Plate contributions and vouchers issued to voters for purchasing consumer products etc., this court points out that there is no cogent, satisfactory and admissible evidence adduced on the part of the plaintiff,” the Supreme Court said.