How Prefix “Professor” Induced Voters? Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Against Election Of Education Minster R Bindu For Alleged Misrepresentation

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition challenging the election of Education Minister R Bindu from Irinjalakuda Constituency in the General Election held in 2021 to the Kerala Legislative Assembly.

The petition was filed seeking a declaration that her election was void on the ground that she misrepresented herself as “Professor R Bindu”, even though she was not a designated Professor, in order to induce voters. The petition also alleged that she indulged in other corrupt practices in contravention of the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

A single bench of Justice Sophy Thomas observed:

“showing the name of the 1st respondent as ‘Prof.R.Bindu’ in Annexures-E to G notice, pamphlet etc., and doing election campaign also in that name will not amount to corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123(2) of the RP Act, as the Returning Officer corrected her name as Prof.R.Bindu in the list of contesting candidates and Ballot paper, as per the Proviso to Rule 8(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, on being satisfied as to the genuineness of her request in Annexure-C, as she was popularly known as Prof.R.Bindu.”

The petition was filed by Thomas J Unniyadan who was the Kerala Congress candidate from Irinjalakuda Constituency for the 2021 legislative assembly elections.

Senior Adv S Sreekumar appeared for Thomas Unniyadan and Senior Adv. P V Surendranath appeared for R Bindu.

The counsel for Unniyadan contended that R Bindu circulated and distributed notices and pamphlets, describing herself as ‘Prof R Bindu’, though she was not a designated Professor. She also persuaded the people to vote for her stating that only a Professor could address the grievances of the constituency, the petitioner argued.

However, the counsel for the Education Minister and CPI (M) candidate stated that she is popularly known as “Prof R Bindu” and is identified and addressed by people in that manner. It was also contended that since two other candidates were contesting in the election from the same constituency by the name Bindu, she had requested Returning Officer to put her name as ‘Prof.R.Bindu’ in the ballot paper for easy differentiation.

It was also contended on behalf of the Minister that she worked at Sree Kerala Varma College in Thrissur for 26 years and held different positions including Vice-Principal and Principal-in-charge of the college. As an Associate Professor, she was often addressed as "Professor" by the public and students. Her academic achievements, including a Ph.D. and numerous publications, contributed to her widespread recognition and popularity as Prof.R.Bindu.

The court held that the use of the prefix 'prof' did not amount to misrepresentation in this case:

“The mere use of the word “Prof.” cannot be termed as a misrepresentation. That word could not have induced the electors to vote for her. By using the prefix “Prof.” to her name, she never interfered with the free exercise of electoral rights of the voters, as she was an Associate Professor, Vice-Principal and the Head of the English Department of Sree Kerala Varma College, Thrissur. Since the Returning Officer was empowered to allow Annexure-C request under the Proviso to Rule 8(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, it cannot be termed as an illegal activity from his part. The election petitioner has not pleaded with necessary material facts and particulars, how the word “Prof.” could induce the voters in his constituency to cast their votes in favour of the 1st respondent.” The court observed

The petitioner also alleged that one Mr K R Jojo, a CPI(M) worker and a participant in the election campaign of the Minister prepared a notice attacking the character and conduct of the petitioner with the intention of affecting his prospects in the election. Mr K R Jojo distributed thousands of copies of the said notice with the Minister’s consent and hence committed corrupt practices envisaged under Section 123(4) read with Section 127-A of the RP Act, it was argued.

However rejecting this contention the court held:

“There is nothing to show that Sri.K.R.Jojo printed, published and circulated Annexure-N notice with the consent of the 1st respondent. Material facts, material particulars and the source of information regarding the corrupt practices alleged against the 1st respondent are not pleaded with exactitude, to formulate an issue sufficient to be tried before this Court. Moreover, the pleadings are not sufficient to disclose a cause of action for the election petitioner. So the election petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.”

The court observed that the election petition did not reveal a cause of action and when allegations of corrupt practice of a such a serious nature are involved, vague pleadings without specific the details of the allegations could not be accepted.

“in the filing of an election petition challenging the successful election of a candidate, the election petitioner should take extra care and shall not leave any room for doubt, while making any allegation of corrupt practice. Unless and until the election petitioner comes forward with a definite plea of his case, supported by legally acceptable material evidence, to prove the allegations of corrupt practice without an iota of doubt, the election petition cannot be entertained and will have to be rejected at the threshold.” the court observed.

Case Title: Thomas J Unniyadan v R Bindu

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 194

Click here to read/download judgment