C. KUPPUSAMY Vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner, who is a Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate appropriate action, by launching prosecution against Selvi J.Jayalalithaa in accordance with law for the offence alleged to have been committed by her under Section 177, IPC and directly control and monitor the same under the powers of judicial superintendence.

(2.) IN his affidavit, the petitioner would submit that in the elections for the Legislative Assembly of the State of Tamil Nadu, held in the year 2001, Ms.Jayalalithaa had proposed to contest as a candidate and filed her nomination papers in four Assembly Constituencies viz. Andipatti, Dharmapuri, Bhuvanagiri and Pudukkottai, in contravention of Section 33(7)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and had given declarations that she had not been or would not be nominated as a candidate for more than two constituencies, however, all her nomination papers came to be rejected on the ground of disqualification arising out of her conviction in a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 besides being in contravention of Section 33(7)(b) of the Representation of People Act and therefore, she had acted in violation of the Representation of the People Act and made false declarations before the respondents 3 and 4, before whom she had filed her nominations and thus she has palpably rendered herself liable for punishment under Section 177 of IPC.

(3.) THE petitioner would further submit that he made a representation dated 29.9.2001 to the first respondent, requesting to take immediate action, by issue of directions to the concerned authorities to initiate criminal action against Ms.Jayalalithaa and in response to the said representation, the first respondent had also conveyed to the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamilnadu/the 2nd respondent, the desire of the Commission that the Returning Officer of 66 -Bhuvanagiri and 191 -Pudukkottai Assembly Constituencies should examine the matter for appropriate action in the light of nomination papers and other connected documents filed by or on behalf of Ms.J.Jayalalithaa in view of Commission's clarification with reference to the relevant provisions of Section 177, IPC and 195, Cr.P.C.; that now, Jayalalithaa, on being subsequently elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, was sworn in as the Chief Minister on 2.3.2002; that despite his letters enclosing Commission's clarification to the respondents 3 and 4, no action has been initiated so far; that no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary and in the present case, the respondents 2 to 4 are mute spectators to the offence committed by the highest authority, which is equally arbitrary enough and public authorities, like respondents 2 to 4, cannot play fast and loose with the power vested in them and in tune with the persons that be involved and persons like the petitioner are entitled to know, with exactness and precision, what they are expected to do or forbear from doing explicitly when the authority is making the order; that Ms. Jayalalithaa, having been a Chief Minister in the past and currently being, as such, does not enjoy any immunity in relation to her conduct in filing nominations in flagrant violation of Section 33(7)(b) of the Representation of the People Act; that the respondents 1 to 4, as apparent from the present political atmosphere, are only inclined to desist from proceeding with tangible and concrete action against the wrongdoer; that the whole issue is allowed to languish without action and the petitioner is made to run from pillar to post for bringing to book an offender.