CHENNAI: Madras high court, hearing an election petition against the victory of chief minister C Joseph Vijay in Perambur constituency, asked whether an alleged encroacher of a govt property would be barred from contesting an election?Justice V Lakshminarayanan raised the question after counsel for the election petitioner, Dinesh, submitted that Vijay had claimed ownership of 50 cents of land in Kodaikanal which had been classified as govt poromboke.N C Ashok Kumar, appearing for Dinesh, said the petitioner had records to establish that the land was classified as govt poromboke. However, he said the issue could be tested only during the trial of the election petition and not at the present stage, when Vijay was seeking rejection of the petition.“But the gentleman (Vijay) has produced the sale deed,” Justice Lakshminarayanan observed.“Yes, Your Lordship. But the affidavit contains particulars relating to the property which have to be examined,” Ashok Kumar replied.The exchange took place during the hearing of an application moved by Vijay seeking rejection of the election petition filed by Dinesh, a voter from Perambur constituency. The petitioner has alleged that Vijay had failed to disclose certain assets in his election affidavit.Later, senior advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan, representing Vijay, argued that the election petition proceeded on the basis that mere incompleteness in the disclosure of assets, of any nature whatsoever, automatically amounted to undue influence and therefore constitutes a corrupt practice.Stating that there was a second requirement for establishing undue influence — interference with the voter’s free exercise of electoral rights, he asked, “How does the non-disclosure of an asset interfere with the individual voter?”Gopal Shankaranarayanan distinguished between non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and alleged non-disclosure of assets. Referring to serious criminal cases, he said a voter could legitimately decide not to vote for a candidate after learning that he was accused of offences such as murder or rape. Such a situation, he argued, could not be equated with an allegation that a candidate had failed to disclose certain assets.“My client (Vijay) is admittedly a wealthy individual. The voters know that he comes from a wealthy family and that he himself is a very wealthy person. His disclosed wealth was around Rs 640 crore. Whether an allegation that a few more crores had not been disclosed could be equated with criminalisation of politics,” he said.Even if such non-disclosure had an impact, Gopal argued, the election petitioner would have to establish which voters were influenced by it and how their electoral choice was affected.The court concluded the hearing and said it would pass orders on Vijay’s application seeking rejection of the election petition on Oct 14.
