How one undisclosed campaign vehicle led to an election being set aside in Tamil Nadu
In an election, every penny spent needs to be properly accounted for, at least for record-keeping purposes. Overlooking the expense of using even a single
In an election, every penny spent needs to be properly accounted for, at least for record-keeping purposes. Overlooking the expense of using even a single campaign vehicle could prove costly, as an AIADMK candidate found out 30 years ago. In 1991, Tamil Nadu went to polls, simultaneously for Assembly and Parliament. The AIADMK-Congress combine secured a landslide victory, riding on a massive sympathy wave generated by the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. In the Chernamahadevi constituency, R. Puthunainar Athithan of the AIADMK defeated P.H. Pandian, a former Speaker who was contesting as an Independent, by a huge margin of 34,468 votes. While Athithan was celebrating, Pandian filed an election petition in the Madras High Court challenging his victory. He accused Athithan of having indulged in corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. What were the grounds for the petition? Pandian argued that Athithan had filed a return declaring total campaign expenses of ₹36,350, which was well within the statutory limit of ₹50,000. Included in this was ₹15,875 spent on a vehicle bearing the registration number TN-72 1909, which Athithan had acknowledged using for campaign purposes.
In his written statement, Athithan admitted he had used another vehicle, bearing the registration number TNH-555. He did not account for the expenditure incurred in that behalf. Had he shown the true account of expenditure, it would have been proved that he had exceeded the limit prescribed under Section 77 of the Act. Therefore, it was found that he had committed corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act, and the Madras High Court in 1994 declared his election as void. The Supreme Court case Athithan challenged this in the Supreme Court. His senior counsel D.D. Thakur argued that his client had, in his expenditure return, specifically stated that he had used one vehicle, bearing the registration number TN-72 1909. The counsel said while his client, in the written statement, had stated that he had used another vehicle, he had not made any admission that he had used “more than one vehicle.” The High Court, therefore, was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had used two vehicles and he had not accounted for the expenditure incurred for the second vehicle. “The statement must be construed as a whole.
If it is so understood, there is no unequivocal admission that he used more than one vehicle. Burden is on the respondent (Pandian) to establish that the appellant had used more than one vehicle and the expenditure incurred was in excess of the prescribed limit of ₹50,000,” Thakur argued. Burden of proof However, the Supreme Court held that the standard of proof required cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula. “No mathematical formula can be laid on the degree of proof. The probative value could be gauged from the facts and circumstances in a given case. An inference from the proved facts must be so probable that if the Court believes, from the proved facts, that the facts do exist, it must be held that the fact has been proved,” the court said. The inference of proof of that fact could be drawn from the given objective facts, direct or circumstantial. “Under these circumstances, the necessary conclusion would be that he had also used that vehicle and its expenditure was deliberately withheld by him. He suppressed that fact in his expenditure return. From these facts, the High Court has reasonably arrived at the finding that had he produced the account, the expenditure would have been shown to be in excess of the limit prescribed under the Act,” the judgment said.
The BriefWire