[ 1 ]

DTP—V-4 Ex.(157)—1

TAMIL NADU

GOVERNMENT GAZETTE

EXTRAORDINARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No.157]

CHENNAI, FRIDAY, APRIL 4, 2025

Panguni 21, Kurothi, Thiruvalluvar Aandu–2056

Part V—Section 4

Notifications by the Election Commission of India

[Regd. No. TN/CCN/467/2012-14.

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

[R. Dis. No. 197/2009.

2025

[Price : Rs. 8.00 Paise.

NOTIFICATIONS BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN ELECTION PETITION

NO.02 OF 2024

No. SRO G–17/2025.

The following Notification of the Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan,

Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110 001, dated 21st March, 2025 [30 Phalguna,1946

(Saka)] is published:-

No. 82/TN-HP/(EP 02 of 2024)/2025/SS-I:- In pursuance of section 106 (a) of the

Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), the Election Commission hereby

publishes the Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras dated 07.03.2025 in Election

Petition No. 02 of 2024.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

Election Petition No. 02 of 2024

ELP No.2 of 2024:-

M.L.Ravi

S/o.Lakshmipathy, No.21/11,

Venkatraman Street, Chennai-600 001.

...Petitioner

-VS-

(**) The Election Commission of India

Nirvachan Sadan, No.1, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi 110 001.

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

(**) The Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu

Public (Elections) Department,

Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennal-600 009.

(**Deleted/Struck off from the array of

respondents by order dated 21.01.2025

in O.A No. 890 of 2024 in ELP No.2 of 2024)

1.Returning Officer

No.04, Chennai Central Lok sabha Constituency,

Greater Chennai Corporation Zonal Office,

Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030.

2. Dayanidhi Maran

S/o.Murasoli Maran, No.3,

First Avenue, Boat Club,

Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028.

... Respondents

This Election Petition praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

(i) Declare that the election held in No.04-Chennai Central Loksabha Parliament

Constituency is of undue influence and not free and fair election. (ii) Declare that

the accounts submitted is suppressed and exceeds the limit prescribed, is of corrupt

practice (iii) Declare that the accounts submitted violates Section 77 of R.P.Act and

disqualify as per Section 10 A of R.P.Act (iv) Declare the elections to 04 Chennai

Central Loksabha Parliament constituency as null and void.

The above Election Petition having been heard on 26/02/2025 in the presence

of Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan, advocate for the Election Petitioner, Mr.T.Mohan Senior

Counsel for Mrs.M.Sneha for 2nd Respondent and upon reading the Election Petition

and Affidavit of M.L.Ravi filed herein and upon reading the order dated 07.03.2025

made in O.A.No.103 of 2025 and this court having stood over for consideration

till this day and coming on this day before this court for orders in the presence of

the above said advocates and this court having observed that no cause of action

survives in this Election Petition.

it is ordered as follows:-

1. That the Election Petition No.2 of 2024 be and is hereby rejected.

2. That there shall be no order as to costs.

WITNESS,

THE

HON’BLE

MR.JUSTICE

SHRIRAM

KALPATHI

RAJENDRAN, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS, AFORESAID

THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2025

Sd./-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Original Side - II

//Certified to be true copy//

Dated at Madras this the 14th day of March 2025

Court Officer (O.S)

‘Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023’.

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

10/03/2025

ELP.NO.2 OF 2024

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE

N. ANAND VENKATESH

DECREE DATED: 07/03/2025

FOR APPROVAL: 13/03/2025

APPROVED ON: 13/03/2025

Copy to:

1. The Returning Officer

No.4, Chennai Central Loksabha

Constituency, Greater Chennai Corporation

Zonal Office,

Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-30.

2. Election Commission of India

Nirvachan Sadan, No.1,

Ashoka Road,

New Delhi–110 001

3. The Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu

Public (Elections) Department,

Secretariat, Fort St. George,

Chennai-600 009.

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2025

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICEN. ANAND VENKATESH

Election Petition No. 2 of 2024

ELP No.2 of 2024:-

ML Ravi

S/o. Lakshmipathy, No.21/11,

Venkatraman Street, Chennai-600 001.

... Petitioner

-VS-

(**) The Election Commission of India

Nirvachan Sadan, No.1, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi 110 001.

(**)The Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu

Public (Elections) Department,

Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai–600 009.

(**Deleted/Struck off from the array

of respondents by order dated 21.01.2025

in O.A.NO. 890 of 2024 in ELP.No.2 of 2024)

1. Returning Officer

No 04. Chennai Central Loksabha Constituency,

Greater Chennai Corporation Zonal Office,

Shenoy Nagar, Chennai–600 030.

2. Dayanidhi Maran

S/o Murasoli Maran, No.3,

First Avenue, Boat Club,

Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028.

….Respondents

This Election Petition praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to (i) Declare that

the election held in No.04-Chennai Central Loksabha Parliament Constituency is of

undue influence and not free and fair election. (ii) Declare that the accounts submitted

is suppressed and exceeds the limit prescribed, is of corrupt practice (iii) Declare that

the accounts submitted violates Section 77 of R.P.Act and disqualify as per Section

10A of R.P.Act (iv) Declare the elections to 04 Chennai Central Loksabha Parliament

constituency as null and void.

The above Election Petition having been heard on 26/02/2025 in the presence of

Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan, advocate for the Election Petitioner, Mr.T.Mohan Senior

Counsel for Mrs.M.Sneha for 2nd Respondent and upon reading the Election Petition

and Affidavit of M.L.Ravi filed herein and this court having stood over for consideration

till this day and coming on this day before this court and

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

the court made the following order:-

In the light of the order passed in O.A.No.103 of 2025 today i.e. dated

07.3.2025, no cause of action survives in this election petition

2. Accordingly, the above election petition stands rejected.

No costs.

WITNESS, THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SHRIRAM KALPATHI RAJENDRAN,

CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS, AFORESAID THIS THE 07TH DAY OF

MARCH 2025

Sd./-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Original Side–II

//Certified to be true copy//

Dated at Madras this the 14th day of March 2025.

Court Officer (O.S)

‘Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023’.

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

10/03/2025

ELP.NO.2 OF 2024

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE

N. ANAND VENKATESH

ORDER DATED: 07/03/2025

FOR APPROVAL: 13/03/2025

APPROVED ON: 13/03/2025

Copy to:

1. The Returning Officer

No.4, Chennai Central Loksabha

Constituency, Greater Chennai

Corporation Zonal Office,

Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-30.

2. Election Commission of India

Nirvachan Sadan, No.1,

Ashoka Road,

New Delhi–110 001

3. The Chief Electoral Officer of

Tamil Nadu

Public (Elections) Department,

Secretariat, Fort St.George,

Chennai-600 009.

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2025

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

Ο.Α.ΝΟ.103 OF 2025

Election Petition No. 2 of 2024

ELP No.2 of 2024:-

M.L.Ravi

S/o Lakshmipathy, No.21/11,

Venkatraman Street, Chennai–600 001.

….Petitioner

-VS-

(**) The Election Commission of India

Nirvachan Sadan, No.1, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi 110 001.

(**) The Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu

Public (Elections) Department,

Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai–600 009.

(**Deleted/Struck off from the array

of respondents by order dated 21.01.2025

in O.A.NO. 890 of 2024 in ELP.No.2 of 2024)

1. Returning Officer

No.04, Chennai Central Loksabha Constituency,

Greater Chennai Corporation Zonal Office,

Shenoy Nagar, Chennai–600 030.

2. Dayanidhi maran

S/o.Murasoli Maran, No.3,

First Avenue, Boat Club,

Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai–600 028.

….Respondents

OA No. 103 oF 2025:-

Dayanidhi Maran

S/o.Murasoli Maran, No.3,

First Avenue, Boat Club,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai-600 028.

.... Applicant/2nd Respondent

-VS-

1. M.L.Ravi

S/o.Lakshmipathy, No.21/11,

Venkatraman Street, Chennai-600 001.

…..1st Respondent/Petitioner

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

(**) The Election Commission of India

Nirvachan Sadan, No.1, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi 110 001.

(**) The Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu

Public (Elections) Department,

Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai–600 009.

(**Deleted/Struck off from the array

of respondents by order dated 21.01.2025

in O.A.NO. 890 of 2024 in ELP.No.2 of 2024)

2. Returning Officer

No.4, Chennai Central Loksabha Constituency,

Greater Chennai Corporation Zonal Office,

Shenoy Nagar, Chennai–600 030.

….2nd Respondent/1st Respondent

This Original Application praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to delete

paragraphs 6 to 23 and 27 from the election petition No.2 of 2024.

The above Application having been heard on 26/02/2025 in the presence of

Mr.T.Mohan Senior Counsel for Mrs.M.Sneha for Applicant/2nd Respondent in Elp.

No.2 of 2024 and Mr. T. Sivagnanasambandan Advocate of 1st Respondent/Election

Petitioner and upon reading the Judges summon and Affidavit of Dayanidhi Maran filed

herein and this court having stood over for consideration till this day and coming on this

day before this court for orders in the presence of the above said advocates and this

Court have observed that, none of the allegations is substantiated either by pleading,

the material facts or through the relied upon documents, which have been filed by the

first respondent along with the main election petition.

it is ordered as follows:-

1. That the original Application No. 103 of 2025 be and is hereby Allowed.

2. That the pleadings in paragraphs 6 to 23 and 27 of the main election

petition be and is hereby struck off.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs.

WITNESS, THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SHRIRAM KALPATHI RAJENDRAN,

CHIEF

JUSTICE,

HIGH

COURT AT

MADRAS, AFORESAID THIS THE

07TH DAY OF MARCH 2025

Sd./-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Original Side–II

//Certified to be true copy//

Dated at Madras this the 14th day of March 2025.

Court Officer (O.s)

‘Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023’.

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

13/03/2025

OA.NO.103 of 2025

ELP.NO.2 OF 2024

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE

N. ANAND VENKATESH

DECREE DATED: 07/03/2025

FOR APPROVAL: 13/03/2025

APPROVED ON: 13/03/2025

Copy to:

1. The Returning Officer

No.4, Chennai Central Loksabha

Constituency, Greater Chennai

Corporation Zonal Office,

Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-30.

2. Election Commission of India

Nirvachan Sadan, No.1,

Ashoka Road,

New Delhi–110 001.

3. The Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu

Public (Elections) Department,

Secretariat, Fort St.George,

Chennai-600 009.

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2025

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

Ο.Α.ΝΟ.103 OF 2025

Election Petition No. 2 of 2024

ELP No.2 of 2024:-

M.L.Ravi

S/o Lakshmipathy, No.21/11,

Venkatraman Street, Chennai–600 001.

….Petitioner

-VS-

(**) The Election Commission of India

Nirvachan Sadan, No.1, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi 110 001.

(**) The Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu

Public (Elections) Department,

Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai–600 009.

(**Deleted/Struck off from the array

of respondents by order dated 21.01.2025

in O.A.NO. 890 of 2024 in ELP.No.2 of 2024)

1. Returning officer

No.04, Chennai Central Loksabha Constituency,

Greater Chennai Corporation Zonal Office,

Shenoy Nagar, Chennai–600 030.

2. Dayanidhi Maran

S/o.Murasoli Maran, No.3,

First Avenue, Boat Club,

Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai–600 028.

….Respondents

OA NO. 103 OF 2025:-

Dayanidhi Maran

S/o.Murasoli Maran, No.3,

First Avenue, Boat Club,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai-600 028.

..... Applicant/2nd Respondent

-VS-

1. M.L.Ravi

S/o.Lakshmipathy, No.21/11,

Venkatraman Street, Chennai-600 001.

…..1st Respondent/Petitioner

(**) The Election Commission of India

Nirvachan Sadan, No.1, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi 110 001.

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

(**) The Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu

Public (Elections) Department,

Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai–600 009.

(**Deleted/Struck off from the array

of respondents by order dated 21.01.2025

in O.A.No. 890 of 2024 in ELP.No.2 of 2024)

2. Returning Officer

No.4, Chennai Central Loksabha Constituency,

Greater Chennai Corporation Zonal Office,

Shenoy Nagar, Chennai–600 030.

….2nd Respondent/1st Respondent

This Original Application praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to delete

paragraphs 6 to 23 and 27 from the election petition No.2 of 2024.

The above Application having been heard on 26/02/2025 in the

presence of Mr.T.Mohan Senior Counsel for Mrs.M.Sneha for Applicant and

Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan Advocate of 1st Respondent and upon reading the

Judges summon and Affidavit of Dayanidhi Maran filed herein and this court having

stood over for consideration till this day and coming on this day before this court

and

the court made the following order:-

This is an application filed by the applicant under Order VI Rule 16 of the Civil

Procedure Code (CPC) seeking to strike off the pleadings from paragraphs 6 to 23

and 27 in the main election petition.

2. Heard both.

3. The first respondent/election petitioner filed the main election petition

seeking to (a) declare that the election held in Chennai Central Loksabha Parliament

Constituency was not free and fair and was vitiated by undue influence; (b) declare

that the accounts submitted were suppressed and exceeded the limit prescribed

and were of corrupt practice; (c) declare that the accounts submitted were violative

of Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the Act) and

disqualify the applicant under Section 10-A of the Act; and (d) declare the election

to the Chennai Central Loksabha Parliament Constituency as null and void.

4. In the main election petition, the first respondent alleged as follows:

(i) The campaign for the Loksabha elections came to an end on 17.4.2024.

The “silence period” commenced whereby every one was expected to refrain from

influencing the voters through any means till the conclusion of the polling as per

Section 126 of the Act. However, the party, to which, the applicant belongs, gave

a full page advertisement in four daily newspapers on 19.4.2024, which was the

polling day and this was in violation of Section 126 of the Act and was a corrupt

practice as per Section 123 of the Act.

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

(ii) The applicant had pasted stickers depicting his photograph, the symbol

of the party, to which, he belongs and the leader of the party during the campaign

in all the houses of the entire constituency. The expenditure of those stickers was

not accounted for nor reflected in the accounts submitted by him towards election

expenditure. The stickers did not bear the name of the publisher. The quantity of

stickers that were printed was also not available and the stickers are still visible

till date. Therefore, the cost of the stickers, which approximately worked out to

Rs.58,50,000/-, was not added to the total expenditure.

(iii) Apart from that, the booth agents were provided with breakfast, lunch

and tea expenses, which would cost at least Rs.100/-per head and which had led

to incurring the additional expenses to the tune of Rs.1,15,300/- Further, for the

tables and chairs, which were provided near every polling booth for 1153 booths,

the applicant incurred the further expenses to the tune of Rs.1,15,300/- and the

applicant would have incurred the additional expenses of Rs.96,17,493/-in excess

of the prescribed limit.

(iv) A massive rally was conducted on 14.4.2024 and 15.4.2024, for which,

the applicant would have incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.96,51,493/-. But, this

amount was also not accounted for. Therefore, the accounts that were submitted

by the applicant to the Election Commission of India were vitiated as they did not

reflect the actual expenditure incurred by the applicant and thereby, there is a

violation of Section 77(3) of the Act, which would tantamount to a corrupt practice

under Section 123(6) of the Act. With all these allegations, the first respondent

sought for declaring the election held for the Chennai Central Loksabha Parliament

Constituency as null and void.

5. Notice was ordered in the main election petition on 30.8.2024.

6. After service of notice, the applicant has come forward with the above

original application seeking for striking off the pleadings as contained in the main

election petition contending as follows:-

(1) The pleadings in paragraphs 6 to 15 and 23 of the main election petition

are not supported by any material. The so-called advertisement pointed out by the

first respondent was not published by the applicant, but it was actually published

by the party, to which, he belongs and it is in line with Clause (iii) of Instruction

Sl.No.31 of the Compendium of Instructions on Model Code of Conduct, 2024

issued by the Election Commission of India. Consequently, those pleadings will

have to be necessarily struck off.

(ii) In so far as the averments made in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the main

election petition are concerned, even according to the first respondent, the name

of the applicant was not found in any of the stickers and therefore, rendering

of accounts for the alleged stickers does not arise. The expenses incurred for

providing food and beverages to the booth agents and the tables and chairs, which

were used by them outside the booths, were not arranged by any candidate. The

booth agents were volunteers belonging to the political party and participated as

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

the agents on their own volition and the candidates have nothing to do with those

expenses. Accordingly, the applicant sought for deletion of paragraphs 16 and 17 of

the main election petition.

(iii) In so far as the allegations made in paragraph 18 of the main election

petition are concerned, the applicant took a stand that even as per the video

clippings relied upon by the first respondent, the applicant did not participate in the

rally that took place on 14.4.2024 and 15.4.2024 and it was only organized by the

party, to which, he belongs and therefore, the expenses incurred for this rally cannot

be mulcted on the applicant.

(iv) In so far as the averments as contained in paragraphs 19 to 22 of the

main election petition are concerned, the stand of the applicant is that it pertains to

maintenance of a register and submitting the accounts to the Election Commission.

The applicant already submitted the entire election expenditure, which was in line

with the shadow register maintained by the Election Commission and the same

was also accepted by the Election Commission. The so-called discrepancy pointed

out by the first respondent is not supported by any material particulars and by no

stretch, it can be held to be a ground to declare the election as null and void.

(v) With respect to the averment as contained in paragraph 27 of the main

election petition that the applicant had flouted the laws, according to the applicant,

the first respondent has not explained as to how the applicant had violated the laws.

7. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit to this original application

reiterating the stand taken in the main election petition and sought for dismissal of

the above original application.

8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned

counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. The main ground that was alleged by the first respondent as against the

applicant is that the election of the applicant is vitiated by corrupt practice on the

part of the applicant.

10. Section 83 of the Act deals with the contents of an election petition. It is

now too well settled that the pleadings in an election petition have to be construed

strictly. The initial ingredients of pleadings in the case of election due to corrupt

practice must necessarily contain the details of every important particular giving

the time, names of persons, name of the place, use of words and expressions, etc.

It must also clearly appear from the allegations that the corrupt practices alleged

were indulged by the candidate himself and/or by his authorized election agent or

any other person with his express or implied consent.

11. The Court should not venture into drawing any inference and the Court

can only act upon the clear and specific pleadings to prima facie see if a cause of

action has been made out for the allegation of corrupt practice. The Apex Court has

held that there is a marked difference between the material facts and the material

particulars and that the failure to plead material facts will be fatal to the election

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

petition and not even an amended pleading can be allowed to introduce such

material facts after the time limit that was prescribed for filing the election petition

is over. That apart, the Court should not look beyond the pleadings to find out as to

whether the election petition disclosed a cause of action.

12. The sum and substance of the law laid down by the Supreme Court

with respect to the nature of pleadings in election cases can be summarized thus:

“(a) The pleadings of the election petition should be absolutely precise and

clear containing all necessary details and particulars as required by law.

(b) The allegations in the election petition should not be vague, general

in nature or lacking of materials or frivolous or vexatious because the court is

empowered at any stage of the proceedings to strike down or delete pleadings

which are suffering from such vices as not raising any triable issue.

nature leading to an irresistible conclusion and unimpeachable result that the

allegations made, have been committed rendering the election void under Section

100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

(d) The evidence produced before the Court in support of the pleadings

must be clear, cogent, satisfactory, credible and positive and also should stand the

test of strict and scrupulous scrutiny.

(e) It is unsafe in an election case to accept oral evidence at its face value

without looking or assurances for some surer circumstances or unimpeachable

documents.”

13. While dealing with an application for striking off the pleadings under

Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC, the Court is expected to examine the election petition

and see if the material facts have been properly pleaded. If the Court finds that

the pleadings, as it is, do not disclose any cause of action, it will be justified in

striking off the pleadings. For that purpose, the Court need not wait till the final

stage or even till the defendant/respondent files a written statement/objections. This

ground is available apart from striking off the pleadings, which are unnecessary,

scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.

14. The reason as to why so much importance is given to the pleadings

in an election petition is that success of a candidate, who has won at an election,

should not be lightly interfered with and therefore, any election petition seeking for

such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of law. Setting aside

an election involves serious consequences not only for the returned candidate and

the constituency, but also for the public at large in as much as re-election involves

enormous load on the public funds and administration. Hence, unless the person,

who files the election petition, pleads the entire material facts, the Court has been

given the power to strike off the pleadings and to even reject the election petition on

the ground that the pleadings do not make out a cause of action.

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

15. Having considered the law on the issue, this Court will now go into the

pleadings set out in the main election petition.

16. The averments as contained in paragraphs 6 to 15 and 23 in the

main election petition deal with the so-called violation of Section 126 of the Act

on the ground that the applicant campaigned by means of publishing a full page

advertisement in four newspapers during the silence period. There is a prohibition

of public meetings or processions or through any other means to campaign during

the silence period, which is 48 hours ending with the hour fixed for the conclusion

of the poll for any election in the polling area. The language used in the provision

is that the concerned candidate should not indulge in any such activities during the

silence period.

17. The pleadings as contained in the election petition from paragraphs 6

to 15 and 23 pertain to a one page advertisement that was given in the front page

of four daily newspapers by the party, to which, the applicant belongs and not by the

applicant. However, there is no reference to the applicant in those advertisements,

which were relied upon by the first respondent.

18. For this purpose, it will be relevant to take note of Clauses (iii) to (v) of

Instruction Sl.No.31 of the Compendium of Instructions on Model Code of Conduct,

2024 issued by the Election Commission of India. For proper appreciation, the

relevant portions are extracted as hereunder:

“………..

(iii) (1) no person shall -

(a) Convene, hold or attend, join or address any public meeting or procession

in connection with an election, or

(b) Display to the public any election matter by means of cinematograph

television or other similar apparatus.

the holding of, any musical concert or any theatrical performance or any

other entertainment or amusement with a view to attracting the members

of the public thereto, in any polling area during the period of forty-eight

hours ending with the hour fixed for the conclusion of the poll for any

election in the polling area. (Section-126 of the Representation of the

People Act, 1951).

(iv) Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 126 prohibits display of election

matter through T.V. or similar apparatus. It is clarified that radio would be treated

as ‘other similar apparatus’ for this purpose and hence broadcasting/propagating

any election matter through Radio would be covered under Clause (b) and would

not be permissible during the period of 48 hours mentioned in the said section.

(Commission’s instruction No.3/9/2007/JS-II Dated: 3rd August, 2007).

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

(v) No Political Party or Candidate or any other Organization or Person shall

publish any Advertisement in the print media on poll day and one day prior to

poll day in all the phases, unless the contents of political advertisements are got

Pre-certified by them from the MCMC Committee at the State/District level, as the

case maybe (Commission’s instructionNo.491/MCMC/2019/ Communication, dated

6th April, 2019).

19. The above instructions make it clear that the prohibition is relatable to

the concerned candidate and even such prohibition for publication of advertisement

in the print media on the poll day and/or one day prior to the poll day is not completely

banned if the political advertisements are pre-certified by them as provided in

Clause (v).

20. Admittedly, the DMK party, which had published those advertisements,

has satisfied Clause (v). In any event, even as per the pleadings, there is no

reference to the applicant in any of those advertisements and it is only a general

party propaganda in the newspapers.

21. In the light of the above, this Court holds that the averments contained

in paragraphs 6 to 15 and 23 in the main election petition do not make out a cause

of action for violation of Section 126 of the Act and consequently, it cannot be held

that the applicant has induced the voters and committed corrupt practices under

Section 123 of the Act.

22. In so far as the pleadings as contained in paragraphs 16 and 17 are

concerned, the allegation is against the stickers, which were stated to have been

pasted in the houses of the constituency and which contained the photograph of the

candidate, the leader of the party and the party symbol. Admittedly, the name of the

printer or the publisher is not available and it is not the case of the first respondent

that the name of the applicant is found to be behind the pasting of such stickers in

the constituency.

23. For this purpose, it will be relevant to take note of the Handbook for

Candidate, 2023 issued by the Election Commission of India, in which, Clauses

7.11.1 to 7.11.4 are relevant.

24. On a careful reading of the same, it is clear that such advertisement must

be attributable/traceable to the candidate and only then, he is made accountable for

showing it as an election expenditure. In the absence of the same, the expenditure

cannot be thrust upon the candidate.

25. The first respondent has merely come up with approximation of what

expenditure would have been incurred by the applicant towards pasting of stickers

in the houses of the constituency. There is no material available to even prima facie

conclude that the stickers that were pasted in the houses of the constituency were

directly attributable to the applicant. The first respondent wants this Court to act

upon the approximation of the expenditure that could have been incurred by the

applicant so as to add it to the total expenditure of the applicant. This attempt made

by the first respondent is too far-fetched and the pleadings available do not make

out a cause of action for corrupt practice or in violation of Section 77 of the Act.

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

26. The next issue pertains to the allegations made by the first respondent

regarding the expenses towards providing breakfast, lunch and tea to the booth

agents and the expenses that could have been incurred for providing the tables and

chairs used by them outside the booths.

27. This allegation made by the first respondent is bereft of particulars and

it is more in the nature of an assumption. It must be borne in mind that these booth

agents are none other than the party cadres, who are working for their political party

and the Court cannot assume that all these party cadres were provided with food,

beverages, chairs and tables by the candidates themselves.

28. As already held, the election petition is not dealt with on the basis

of any assumption and it is dealt with only based on the material facts pleaded

in the election petition. In view of the above, it is too far-fetched to act upon the

approximation made by the first respondent in bringing out a figure towards the

expenditure incurred for the booth agents and adding it to the total expenditure

incurred by the candidate.

29. The last portion of the election petition pertains to the averments as

contained in paragraphs 19 to 22, which dealt with the mismatch between the

expenditure, which was actually incurred by the candidate and which was not

properly reflected in the register and the accounts submitted by the candidate to

the Election Commission. In paragraph 18 of the main election petition, the first

respondent speaks about a rally that was conducted on 14.4.2024 and 15.4.2024.

For this purpose, he relied upon the video clippings.

30. In the considered view of this Court, those video clippings nowhere

show that the applicant had participated in the rally. Without any materials, the first

respondent assumed that this rally was organized by the applicant. The averments

made neither show the participation of the applicant nor are material facts available

to add the expenditure submitted by the applicant towards the conduct of the

political rally.

31. In the light of the above findings, if any of the approximate expenditure

calculated by the first respondent from the averments as contained in paragraphs

16 to 18 of the main election petition is not attributable to the applicant, it cannot

be added to the total expenditure of the applicant. Consequently, there is no

cause of action to establish that the applicant incurred expenditure as prescribed

under Section 77(3) of the Act. In any case, the applicant submitted the election

expenditure to the Election Commission. Further, the Election Commission itself

has not found any discrepancy. Therefore, there is no corrupt practice as alleged by

the first respondent under Section 123(6) of the Act.

32. It is quite evident from the averments contained in paragraphs 16 to 22

of the main election petition that the first respondent assumed certain expenditure

to be attributable to the applicant without any material facts and based on mere

presumptions and it does not make out a cause of action to prima facie establish

that there is a corrupt practice.

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

33. In so far as the averments as contained in paragraph 27 of the main

election petition are concerned, it makes out a general allegation that the applicant

flouted the laws through undue influence and inducement and suppressed the

actual expenditure.

34. This Court has already held that none of these allegations is substantiated

either by pleading the material facts or through the relied upon documents, which

have been filed by the first respondent along with the main election petition.

35. This Court ultimately holds that the pleadings in paragraphs 6 to 23 and

27 require to be struck off the main election petition.

36. Accordingly, the above original application is allowed and the pleadings

in paragraphs 6 to 23 and 27 of the main election petition are struck off. No costs.

WITNESS, THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SHRIRAM KALPATHI RAJENDRAN,

CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS, AFORESAID THIS THE 07TH DAY

OF MARCH 2025.

Sd./-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Original Side – II

//Certified to be true copy//

Dated at Madras this the 14th day of March 2025.

Court Officer (O.S)

‘Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023’.

TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY

13/03/2025

OA.NO.103 of 2025

ELP.NO.2 OF 2024

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE

N. ANAND VENKATESH

ORDERED DATED: 07/03/2025

FOR APPROVAL: 13/03/2025

APPROVED ON: 13/03/2025

Copy to:

1. The Returning Officer

No.4, Chennai Central Loksabha

Constituency, Greater Chennai

Corporation Zonal Office,

Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-30.

2. Election Commission of India

Nirvachan Sadan, No.1,

Ashoka Road,

New Delhi–110 001

3. The Chief Electoral Officer of

Tamil Nadu Public

(Elections) Department,

Secretariat, Fort St.George,

Chennai-600 009.

(By Order)

Lata Tripathi,

Secretary,

Election Commission of India.

Secretariat,

ARCHANA PATNAIK,

Chennai-600 009,

Chief Electoral Officer &

4th April ,2025

Secretary to Government,

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF STATIONERY AND

PRINTING, CHENNAI ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU