Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order That Annulled Election Of Lone AIADMK MP & OPS's Son P. Ravindranath

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the order of the Madras High Court that declared the 2019 Lok Sabha election of P. Ravindranath, son of former Tamil Nadu CM O Paneerselvan and the sole Member of Parliament from the AIADMK party, null and void. The Apex Court has allowed him to continue as a Member of Parliament until further orders from the Court. 

A division bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta admitted the appeal filed by Ravindranath and issued notice. The matter has been posted to 4th October 2023, for final hearing. 

The petitioner was represented by a battery of senior lawyers KK Venuogpal, Kapil Sibal and Jayant Bhushan. 

Last month, the Madras High Court had declared his election null and void. The High Court had however kept the order in abeyance for a month, to enable appeal against the order.

P Ravindranath, was the lone candidate of the AIADMK-NDA coalition to succeed in the 2019 Constituency Election from Theni Constituency.

Justice SS Sundar of the Madras High Court passed the order on an election petition filed by P Milany, a voter from the constituency, who had challenged his election on the ground of suppression of sources of income and bribing of voters.

Milany had submitted that the MP had mentioned only agriculture and business as his sources of income and not disclosed the income that he received as the director of a private company. He added that assets, investments, sources of income, shares, financial loans and liabilities were suppressed in the affidavit filed by Ravindranath at the time of nomination. Milany had also submitted a CD containing video evidence, circulated during the election, allegedly showing voters being bribed.

Though Ravindranath had filed a petition to dismiss the election petition, the same was rejected by the High Court. Thereafter, Ravindranath appeared before the High Court and denied all allegations of misrepresentation and bribe.

The High Court noted that as per Section 123 of the Representation of The People Act 1951, the person who alleges bribery should establish such bribery by way of gift, offer or promise, by a candidate or his agent or by any person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. In the present case, the High Court had observed that though Milany had alleged bribery by a lady, he could not establish that she was performing such acts as an agent of Ravindranath.

"In such circumstances, though the petitioner's case that there was bribery by a lady, it was not established with positive evidence that a lady by name Mrs.Saveetha Arunprasad has indulged in bribing the electors/voters either as an agent appointed by 3rd respondent or his chief agent or acted with the consent of 3rd respondent. Therefore, this Court is unable to hold that the petitioner has established corrupt practices as defined under section 123 of the RP Act, 1951," the High Court had observed.

With respect to non-disclosure, the High Court was satisfied that Ravindranath had not disclosed his assets correctly. The High Court also refused to accept Ravindranath's explanation that the discrepancy was a result of a typographical error. The High Court further observed that if such discrepancies were condoned in the absence of an explanation or supporting document, it would go against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court to save democracy as part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

"For all the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the affidavit filed under Rule 4[A] of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, has not been validly made, Further this Court holds that the Returned Candidate has suppressed his assets equivalent to the value of 15,000 equity shares in M/s.Vani Fabrics Private Limited allegedly transferred by the Returned Candidate in favour of his brother and other assets and sources of income as admitted by him. Further, the 3rd respondent has given a false information in the Election Affidavit filed under Rule 4[A] of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961," the High Court had observed.

The High Court had added that the Returning Officer had failed to conduct the scrutiny of nomination as required under Section 36 of the Act and as per the instructions given in the handbook. Thus, the High Court observed that she had shown a partisan attitude in favour of Ravindranath.

"This Court, from the facts as seen from the documents and evidence, finds that the Returning Officer has not conducted the scrutiny of nominations strictly in terms of Section 36 of the RP Act, 1951 and instructions given under the Hand Book. She has shown her partisan attitude in favour of 3rd respondent at the time of scrutiny. As a consequence, this Court holds that the nomination of 3rd respondent has been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer," the High Court noted.

After declaring the election as null and void, Senior Counsel AK Sriram, appearing for Ravindranath, had urged the High Court to keep the order in abeyance till an appeal is preferred. The High Court acceded to this request and said that the order will be in abeyance till a period of 30 days.

Advocates For the Petitioner: Adv. Sharan Thakur, Adv.Ketan Paul, AOR.Adv. Avi Tandon, Adv. Shashwat Mehra, Adv. Anith Johnson, Adv. Kartik Venu, Adv. Imran Ahmad, Adv. Ankur Talwar, Adv. Siddhant Kohli, Adv. Aparajita Jamwal, Adv. Anusha Iyer, Adv. Siddharth Thakur, Adv. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Amartya Bhushan, Adv. Yojit Mehra, Adv. Tushar Bhushan

Case Title: P. RAVINDHRANATH V. P. MILANY & ORS, Civil Appeal No(s).4724/2023

Click here to read/download order