SC reserves for judgment Duraisamy-Stalin 2011 election dispute

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved for judgment a petition filed by AIADMK leader Saidai S Duraisamy against a Madras High Court verdict dismissing his case linking Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK leader M K Stalin to ‘corrupt practices’ ahead of the 2011 Assembly election to the Kolathur constituency.

A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi heard the submissions by the lawyers appearing for both parties.

Mr. Duraisamy had alleged that the DMK party used its functionaries and money power to lure voters in favour in innovative ways amounting to corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act.

Mr. Stalin’s counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, said the petitioner had no evidence, whatsoever, to show that the alleged corrupt practices, if any,were done with the express or deemed consent of the candidate. Mr. Sibal had argued that a mere “preponderance of probabilities” would not drive home a charge of corrupt practice like bribery of electors to vote in favour of a candidate under Section 123 of the 1951 Act.

The Madras High Court had dismissed the allegations raised by Mr. Duraisamy for lack of conclusive evidence in 2017. It had found that certain CDs brought forth by Mr. Duraisamy did not even comply with the “basic” requirement of a Section 65B certification. The provision mandates a certificate verifying the authenticity, integrity and source of a digital data before admitting it as evidence in court.

Mr. Duraisamy had contended that the DMK party had used the “’Thirumangalam Formula”’ to provide money to the voters in a novel way through community feedings, courier service, currency in newspapers, Arathi Plate contributions and slips to purchase consumer items, etc. A goods vehicle had been caught with boxes of currency.

However, the averments had not impressed the High Court, which came to the conclusion that there was “no categorical averment that the 1st respondent (Mr. Stalin) had given his consent to his party functionaries to bribe the voters and self-help group members with a view to attract a misdeed of ‘corrupt practice’”.

“In regard to the allegation of money distribution by the 1st Respondent’s [Stalin] party by adopting Thirumangalam Formula in a novel way of community feedings, courier service, currency in News paper, Arathi Plate contributions and slips to the voters to purchase consumer items etc, this court points out that there is no convincing, satisfactory and acceptable proof produced on the side of the petitioner,” the High Court had noted.