HC reserves order on a plea against Udhayanidhi's electoral success

The petitioners alleged that the information furnished by Udhayanidhi Stalin in Column 5(ii) Sub column (d) in the tabulation of the election affidavit is false.
Udhayanidhi Stalin. File photo
Udhayanidhi Stalin. File photo

Chennai

The Madras High Court has on Tuesday reserved orders on a plea challenging the electoral success of DMK youth wing secretary Udhayanidhi Stalin from the Chepauk - Triplicane assembly constituency in the 2021 Tamil Nadu state legislative assembly elections.
Justice V Bharathidasan reserved the orders on hearing the petitions moved by R Premalatha, a resident of Chepauk and ML Ravi, one of the candidates contesting from the Chepauk - Triplicane constituency representing the Desiya Makkal Katchi.
The petitioners sought a direction to declare the acceptance of the nomination by Udhayanidhi by suppressing the facts and election results of the Chepauk - Triplicane constituency as null and void.
When the matter was taken up for hearing on Tuesday, the petitioners submitted that they would withdraw their petitions. Meanwhile, counsel for the DMK MLA wanted the court to dismiss the petition as they have not paid the deposit cost for the election petition.
On recording the submissions, the judge reserved the orders and adjourned the matter without mentioning any date.
The petitioners alleged that the information furnished by Udhayanidhi Stalin in Column 5(ii) Sub column (d) in the tabulation of the election affidavit is false.
"About 22 crime numbers under different sections of IPCs are pending against the respondent. However, the respondent, in his affidavit, had mentioned that all the cases have been booked merely for violation of law during political agitation for the public cause and the brief of the crime has not been stated. This is false and misleads the voters, and their right to information,” Premalatha contended.
The petitioners further contended that non-disclosure of materials in the election affidavits by the successful candidate amounts to a violation of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
During the last hearing, the judge sought the respondent to file his response as he did not file it for the past three months since the plea moved.

Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!

Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!

Click here for iOS

Click here for Android

Related Stories

No stories found.
DT next
www.dtnext.in