Madras High Court Pulls Up BJP Functionary Syed Ibrahim For Deliberate Suppression Of Facts, Imposes 10K Cost

Madras High Court has reprimanded BJP functionary Syed Ibrahim for deliberately suppressing material facts regarding a prohibitory order against campaigning in a sensitive area with regards to the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Body Polls.

The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the petitioner resorted to 'twist the facts' in the affidavit filed after the court demanded him to state whether a criminal case was registered against him for entering the sensitive area and whether an express notice was served on him.

Noting the conduct of the petitioner and his failure to file an affidavit as specified by the court, the bench also imposed Rs. 10,000/- as costs upon him.

The Additional Advocate General had produced a copy of the letter served on the petitioner on 5th February and shown as endorsed and received by the latter. Taking the above into account and the failure of the petitioner to controvert the statements made by AAG, the court noted:

"When a specific direction was given by the court to file an affidavit whether he was in receipt of the said letter or not, the petitioner deliberately did not comment on the aforesaid, rather he stated that no prohibitory order has been issued. The aforesaid shows the conduct of the petitioner to suppress the material fact from the court and at the same time not to submit the affidavit of the nature directed by the court..."

The petitioner had filed a plea stating that the election commission officials and the police must be deterred from restraining the petitioner in carrying out election campaigns in the 95th ward of Coimbatore Corporation and other election constituencies. He alleged that his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed by the actions of the respondent authorities.

However, the Advocate General submitted to the court that a prohibitory order was issued on the apprehension of disturbance of the prevailing law and order situation on 5th February. A copy of the order was served on the petitioner directing that he must inform the authorities 24 hours prior if he wishes to enter the sensitive area. Since the petitioner violated the prohibitory order, a criminal case was also registered against him, the counsel for the state added.

However, the counsel for the petitioner maintained the stand that no FIR was registered against the political leader and his client was unaware of any letter addressed to him restraining the entry into the sensitive area.

At this juncture, the court asked the petitioner to file an affidavit to that effect. However, the affidavit filed by the petitioner stated that there has been no criminal case registered against the petitioner to his 'knowledge' and there was no 'express' prohibitory order served on him. Terming it as 'clever drafting', the court did not appreciate the affidavit so filed which was evasive in nature when read along with the court's directions.

Therefore, the court observed further as below with regards to the imposition of costs:

"The costs have been imposed considering the conduct of the petitioner, as he had preferred the writ petition after the suppression of facts and even thereupon he did not file a specific affidavit, as directed, rather tried to twist the facts. The costs would be deposited with the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today. The Registrar (Judicial) would ensure the compliance of the said direction and if it is not made, the disposed of writ petition may be listed before the court for appropriate order for compliance."

Case Title: Syed Ibrahim v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioners & Ors.

Case No: W.P.No.3021 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 67

Click Here To Read/ Download Order