Why Madras High Court Refused To Order Probe Into Tamil Nadu CM's Financial Disclosures In Election Affidavit?

The Madras High Court has recently refused to direct the Income Tax Department to investigate the financial disclosures made by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam chief C. Joseph Vijay in his election affidavit.

It held that disputes over such disclosures can only be adjudicated through an election petition and not in writ proceedings.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Election Commission of India to inquire into the financial disclosures made by Vijay in Form 26 filed with his nomination papers for the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. The petitioner also sought a direction to publish the inquiry report before the elections.

The bench held that the petition was not maintainable in view of Article 329(b) of the Constitution. The provision bars judicial interference in election matters except through an election petition. The Court also referred to Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It noted that the provision sets out the statutory grounds for declaring an election void.

The Court observed that allegations of false or incomplete financial disclosures in a candidate's election affidavit require a detailed factual inquiry. Such an exercise cannot ordinarily be undertaken by the Returning Officer at the nomination stage. Nor can the High Court examine such disputed questions while exercising its writ jurisdiction.

"The non-disclosure of material information in the affidavit is a valid ground for setting aside election by filing an election petition and such relief cannot be sought by way of a writ petition," the Bench observed.

The bench relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray Sawant. It noted that although objections to a candidate's affidavit may be raised during scrutiny of nomination papers, the Returning Officer cannot undertake a detailed examination of disputed facts at that stage.

If it is later established that the affidavit contained false statements or suppressed material information, the election may be challenged through an election petition. In such a case, the challenge would be on the ground that the nomination was improperly accepted.

Quoting the Supreme Court, the bench observed:

"In such a case, when ultimately it is proved that it was a case of non-disclosure and either the affidavit was false or it did not contain complete information leading to suppression, it can be held at that stage that the nomination was improperly accepted."

Holding that the writ petition was not maintainable, the High Court dismissed it. It, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to avail of remedies in accordance with the statutory election law framework.

For Petitioner: M. Karthikeyan

For Respondents: A.P. Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel (R1); Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, Standing Counsel (R2 to R4); Mr. Masilamani, Senior Advocate for Ms. M.B. Ramya (R5)