CHENNAI: Terming it a ‘publicity interest petition’, the Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea seeking directions to prevent the distribution of cash and gift items to influence voters during the Assembly elections.
Citing instances from the 2021 Assembly elections, KK Ramesh of Madurai, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) stating that due to the failure of flying squads, cash-for-vote created a lot of problems, and hence the elections for Thanjavur and Aravakurichi were postponed.
Despite receiving complaints from most of the constituencies, the Election Commission of India did not take any stringent action nor did it postpone or cancel the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections in 2021. This amounted to the ‘brutal murder of democracy’, the petitioner argued.
He prayed for directions to publish that giving and receiving cash for votes is a punishable offence through TV, newspapers, radio, and display boards; increase the number of flying squads to monitor and control cash-for-vote practice; and publish the contact numbers of flying squads to enable complaints.
If the election is postponed or cancelled due to cash-for-vote or deviation from any election rules, the expenditure incurred by the government for conducting the election should be recovered from the concerned candidate or the president of the political party, he added.
When the matter came up for hearing before a division bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, Advocate General PS Raman submitted that the State government was extending full cooperation to the Election Commission in curbing electoral malpractices and noted how even the Chief Minister's vehicle was subjected to inspection by flying squads on Tuesday.
Advocate Niranjan Rajagopal, the standing counsel for the ECI, submitted that the poll panel has deployed 2,169 flying squads and 2,166 static surveillance teams, which were taking care of the issue.
Recording the submissions made by the Election Commission and the State government that necessary steps were being taken to curb the issue, and commenting that the petition was merely a ‘publicity interest litigation’, the bench dismissed the petition.