The Bench was hearing an appeal filed by the DMK MP against the Madras High Court’s decision to examine a petition challenging her election as the Thoothukudi MP in 2019.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it understood DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi’s stand that she could not be unfairly accused of “suppression of material facts” for simply disclosing the truth in her nomination papers for the 2019 general elections that her husband was a foreign citizen and did not hold a PAN.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Sharad A. Bobde was hearing an appeal filed by Ms. Kanimozhi against the Madras High Court’s decision to examine a petition filed by A. Santhana Kumar challenging her election as the Thoothukudi MP in 2019. The Supreme Court had stayed the High Court proceedings in January last year.
Senior advocate P. Wilson, for Ms. Kanimozhi, said Mr. Kumar was a voter who had embarked on a frivolous litigation. His election petition ought to be dismissed.
“My husband, who is a foreigner, does not have a PAN… This truth has been declared in nomination form. How can the disclosure of truth be called suppression of material facts?” Mr. Wilson asked.
“We understand what you are saying. That it [disclosure of PAN] is not a requirement at all… That the only thing you have to disclose is the nationality and not whether he [husband] holds a PAN or not,” Chief Justice Bobde acknowledged Mr. Wilson’s submission.
Initially, the CJI asked Mr. Wilson why his side was “trying to stifle the trial”.
Mr. Wilson promptly denied doing anything to stop the trial.
The court said it would take up the case again after completion of the service of the pleadings to all the respondents. Mr. Wilson said 32 of the 38 respondents had been served.
In her appeal, Ms. Kanimozhi had said the High Court erroneously banked on a petition which was at best “vague and without material facts”.
The High Court had proceeded on the notion that Ms. Kanimozhi refused to disclose the PAN of her spouse.
“The petitioner [Kanimozhi] has clearly mentioned that her spouse does not have a PAN number. If the first respondent (Kumar) herein contends that this statement is wrong, he ought to substantiate the allegation that the statement is incorrect. Without these averments, the bald and vague statement that petitioner has not provided her spouse’s PAN cannot be maintained in an election petition in light of several judgments of the Supreme Court,” the petition in the Supreme Court had said.
Ms. Kanimozhi had asked whether it was justified on the part of the High Court to add averments in the election petition as regards the petitioner’s husband’s income tax reference number?
“When even the election petitioner does not make an averment that the petitioner’s spouse possesses a PAN card or any such card in Singapore, whether it was correct on part of the High Court to frame such an allegation,” the petition has asked.
Mr. Kumar, in his election petition, has not brought even a single material fact to substantiate his case that Ms. Kanimozhi’s nomination was improper. In fact, Ms. Kanimozhi said his election petition contained hollow allegations chanted over and over like a mantra.
Source: Read Full Article