The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea to lift its stay on the Madras High Court’s proceedings on DMK MP Kanimozhi’s election as parliamentarian from the Thoothukudi constituency in 2019.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana prima facie agreed with senior advocate P. Wilson, appearing for Ms. Kanimozhi, that vacating of the stay order, passed in 2020, would cause her prejudice.
The stay was granted two years ago by the Supreme Court on an appeal filed Ms. Kanimozhi against the High Court’s decision to examine a petition filed by A. Santhana Kumar, challenging her election. In her appeal, she had said that the High Court erroneously banked on a petition that was at best “vague and without material facts”.
The High Court had proceeded on the notion that Ms. Kanimozhi had refused to disclose the PAN of her spouse. Ms. Kanimozhi submitted that her nomination records had clearly stated that her husband did not have a PAN card.
“The petitioner (Kanimozhi) has clearly mentioned that her spouse does not have a PAN number. If the first respondent (Kumar) herein contends that this statement is wrong, he ought to substantiate the allegation that the statement is incorrect. Without these averments, the bald and vague statement that petitioner has not provided her spouse’s PAN cannot be maintained in an election petition in light of several judgments of the Supreme Court,” the petition had noted.
Ms. Kanimozhi had even asked whether it was justified on the part of the High Court to add averments in the election petition as regards the petitioner’s husband’s income tax reference number. “When even the election petitioner does not make an averment that the petitioner’s spouse possesses a PAN card or any such card in Singapore, whether it was correct on part of the High Court to frame such an allegation?” the petition had asked.
Mr. Wilson had argued that Mr. Kumar, in his election petition, had not brought a single material fact to substantiate his case that Ms. Kanimozhi’s nomination was improper. In fact, the senior lawyer had argued that the election petition contained hollow allegations.
