Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Election Of Kerala Health Minister Veena George In 2016 Assembly Elections

The petitioner alleged that Veena had involved in corrupt practises as per the Representation of People's Act while contesting in the 2016 elections.

Though a Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi dismissed the plea as it has been infructuous, it also looked at the matter on merits at the insistence of the petitioner counsel, Senior Advocate Kailasanatha Pillai. He told the court that if there's any finding pertaining to corrupt practises during election campaigning, it would have large scale ramifications.

It is the appellant's case that the respondent, while contesting in the state assembly elections in 2016 in Aranmula constitutency, resorted to non-compliance, suppression of material facts which is in violation of the Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The SLP states that the respondent No.1 did not disclose details of a particular Non Resident Ordinary Account while filling her nomination form and this goes against the legal requirement.

"The Respondent No.1 deliberately suppressed the details in form 26 which needs to be duly filed in good faith by candidates and placed before the returning officer. As per Rule four of the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961. Further Respondent No.1 has intentionally refrained from filing details of the non resident ordinary savings bank account number xxxxxxxx in Federal Bank Ltd. which was being regularly operated by her spouse and the same is established by the transaction undertaken by the spouse…..On consideration of the evidence adduced suppression of such a vital information by the candidate in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper vitiates the purpose of serving a check against misuse of power."

The petitioner alleged that the Respondent No.1 succeeded in the elections using corrupt practises as per section 123 (3) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1961.

Secondly, the petitioner alleged that the respondent participated in activities with malafide intention to cajole votes on the grounds of religion and community which is prohibited and in violation of the Constitution of India.

"Secondly, respondent No.1 has blatantly used Facebook for election campaign and for canvassing votes on the grounds of religion and community. She posted a photograph in her Facebook account in which it is depicted that she is delivering a speech on a podium used by the priest and keeping the Holy Cross and Holy Bible and other religious books on her side. She was also seen by people visiting the St. Mary's orthodox Vallipally and St. Mary's Orthodox Church Othara on 15.05.2016 with her spouse and certain other persons distributing pamphlets, and the above described photograph of hers with a malafide intention to wrongly influence people into voting for her in the garb of religion. Also the respondent number one spouse is the Secretary of the Malankara Association and is a very influential in the administration of the Church of the Malankara metropolitan with around 19,000 voters belonging to the Orthodox community responded number one has won the election by a margin of 7,646 votes."

This, the SLP said, makes it crystal as to how the respondents were successful in cajoling the votes in the name of religion which has materially affected the outcome of the elections held.

When the appellant first moved the High Court of Kerala on these grounds, the latter did not entertain the plea as the petitioner "had not made any grounds for interference". Therefore, the appellant moved the Supreme Court of India. Pillai submitted that the High Court had failed to look at the merits of the matter.

The Supreme Court, however, sided with the High Court's view that there were no corrupt practises on the "grounds of religion" and refused to interfere in the matter.

Advocates Kuriakose Varghese and Shyam Mohan appeared for Veena.

Case Title: VR Soji vs Veena George SLP(C) No. 12656/2022 IV-C