Madras HC allows plea seeking Udhayanidhi’s election records

The Bench held that the 45-day limitation period could not be applied to all categories of requests and that the Election Commission’s communication could not override Rule 93.
Former Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin
Former Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin(Photo: X/@Office_of_Udhay)
Updated on

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court directed the Election Commission of India to provide election-related documents pertaining to Udhayanidhi Stalin and other records sought by a candidate who contested from the same constituency for the purpose of filing an election petition.

A Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan allowed a writ petition filed by P. Milani and observed that non-disclosure of the requested documents could affect the petitioner’s right to file an election petition.

Milani, who contested the recently concluded Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election from the Chepauk–Thiruvallikeni Assembly Constituency, stated that he had sought certified copies of nomination papers relating to candidates of the DMK, AIADMK, NTK and TVK even before the election. The Returning Officer replied that objections received against candidates had been displayed on the notice board of the Returning Officer’s office.

After the declaration of results, Milani sought copies of the accepted and rejected nomination papers of DMK candidate S. Udhayanidhi, objections raised against nominations, orders passed on those objections, Form 7A (list of contesting candidates), and the grounds for rejection of nominations. As there was no response to his request, he approached the High Court.

During the hearing, Election Commission of India Standing Counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan submitted that certified copies could be issued only after the expiry of 45 days from the date of declaration of election results and upon payment of the prescribed fee. It was also informed that certified copies of the accepted nomination papers of S. Udhayanidhi and rejected nomination papers had already been furnished to the petitioner.

The Bench held that the 45-day limitation period could not be applied to all categories of requests and that the Election Commission’s communication could not override Rule 93. Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the District Election Officer to issue the certified copies sought by the petitioner within two weeks.

X

DT Next
www.dtnext.in