J.JAYALALITHA Vs C.KUPPUSAMY .
Bench: H.L. DATTU,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001833-001833 / 2012
Diary number: 17778 / 2007
Advocates: SRIKALA GURUKRISHNA KUMAR Vs
M. A. CHINNASAMY
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1833 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3699 of 2007)
J.JAYALALITHAA Appellant
VERSUS
C.KUPPUSAMY & ORS. Respondents
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras in Writ Petition No. 12996 of 2002 with W.P.M.P.
Nos.17487 of 2002 and 1168 of 2007 dated 13.06.2007.
3. It is essential to briefly outlay the facts that led to
this appeal before us. The lis relates to the Legislative
Assembly Elections held in the year 2001 for the State of Tamil
Nadu. The Appellant had proposed to contest as a candidate and
filed her nomination forms in 4 Assembly Constituencies viz.
Krishnagiri, Andipatti, Bhuvanagiri and Padukottai on
16.04.2001, 18.04.2001, 23.04.2001 and 23.04.2001, respectively.
Therein, with each nomination form, she had given a declaration
that she had not been and would not be nominated as a candidate
at the said elections from more than two Assembly
Constituencies. However, she was disqualified to contest the
Page 2
2
elections on the ground of her conviction in a criminal case
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. One Shri C. Kuppusamy (the Respondent No.1 herein),
Member of Parliament, had approached the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of Public
Interest Litigation impleading the Chief Election Commissioner,
Chief Electoral Officer and the Returning Officers of
Bhuvanagiri, Padukottai, Andipatti and Dharmapuri Assembly
Constituencies as Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, respectively. In the
aforesaid Writ Petition, he sought for, inter alia, a writ or
direction to the respondents therein to initiate appropriate
action by launching prosecution against the Appellant in
accordance with law for the offence alleged to have been
committed by her under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code
(“IPC” for short) and to directly control and monitor the same
under their powers of the judicial superintendence.
5. Strangely, Respondent No.1 had not impleaded the
Appellant in the aforesaid Writ Petition. The Appellant had to
implead herself by filing a separate W.P.M.P. No. 1168 of 2007,
which was allowed by the High Court and, accordingly, she was
impleaded as Respondent No.7 in the writ petition.
6. The Respondent No.1 had submitted that the Appellant, by
filing more than 2 nomination forms for candidature in
elections, has acted in breach of Section 33(7) (b) of the
Page 3
3
Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (“the Act” for short)
and by making a false declaration at the time of filing of
nomination forms before Returning Officers of Bhuvanagiri (the
3rd) and Pudukkottai (the 4th) Assembly Constituencies, is liable
to be prosecuted under Section 177 of IPC. He had further
submitted, that the representations made by him before the Chief
Election Commissioner (“the Commissioner” for short) and the
Chief Electoral Officer to initiate criminal action against the
Appellant have not yielded any results and no action under the
aforesaid statutory provisions was initiated against the
Appellant.
7. The Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer had
jointly opposed the allegation of inaction on their part and had
further stated that the Commissioner had conveyed its desire
that the matter be examined by the Returning Officers of the 3rd
and the 4th Assembly Constituencies in the light of the
clarification issued by them. It was further submitted by them
that consequent to the aforesaid direction, it was for the said
Returning Officers to apply their mind while considering the
allegations of false declaration so made or suppression of facts
by the Appellant.
8. Respondent No.7 therein, i.e., the Appellant before us,
had contended that no offence, as alleged in the Writ Petition,
has been committed by her.
Page 4
4
9. The High Court, after considering the case of the parties,
concluded that the Returning Officers of the 3rd and the 4th
Assembly Constituencies were not justified in not initiating
appropriate proceedings under the statutory provisions and
therefore has directed the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 therein to
initiate appropriate action against the Appellant in accordance
with law within a particular time frame. It is this judgment
and order of the High Court which is the subject matter of this
appeal.
10. We have heard Shri U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for
the Appellant, Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel for
Respondent No.1 and Smt. Meenakshi Arora, learned counsel for
the Commissioner.
11. At the time of hearing of this appeal, two reports
submitted by the Returning Officers of the 3rd and the 4th
Assembly Constituencies, dated 10.11.2001 and 14.12.2001
respectively have been brought to our notice. The said reports
were submitted in pursuance of the direction issued by the Chief
Electoral Officer to the Returning Officers of the 3rd and the 4th
Assembly Constituencies in respect of the 4 nomination forms
filed by the Appellant. We have carefully perused the said
reports. The Returning Officers are of the opinion that the
Appellant had produced the 2 nomination forms filed for
candidature in Andipatti and Krishnagiri Assembly Constituencies
before them at the time of scrutiny and therefore, the case of
Page 5
5
suppression of facts at the time of scrutiny could not be made
out. It is on the basis of this observation that they discard
the necessity of taking any action against the Appellant for
giving false declaration.
12. It is also brought to our notice that the said reports
were not placed before the High Court. These reports, outlaying
the opinion of the Returning Officers, are relevant reports
which ought to have been placed, either by the Appellant or by
the Respondent No. 1, before the High Court for its
consideration and appreciation. In our opinion, had the said
reports been placed before the High Court, the High Court would
have had the opportunity to delve into the reasons assigned and
conclusions reached by the Returning Officers.
13. Further, in our opinion, the High Court, while disposing
of the Writ Petition, should have directed the Respondent Nos. 1
to 4 therein to reconsider the matter and then decide whether
any prosecution proceeding should be initiated against the
Appellant, instead of directing them to initiate action against
the Appellant. The decision of initiating any prosecution
proceedings must be taken by the authorities in the light of the
applicable statutory provisions.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment and
order passed by the High Court, requires to be set aside and the
matter requires to be remanded to the High Court for fresh
Page 6
6
disposal in accordance with law.
15. Accordingly, while allowing this appeal, we set aside the
judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the
matter to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with
law. We also permit the Appellant to produce the reports passed
by the Returning Officers dated 10.11.2001 and 14.12.2001. We
permit the respondents to file their additional objections, if
any, before the High Court.
16. We are informed by the learned senior counsel appearing
for the parties that pursuant to the order and direction issued
by the High Court, Returning Officers of the 3rd and the 4th
Assembly Constituencies have filed a complaint before an
appropriate forum. Since we have set aside the judgment and
order passed by the High Court, we quash all proceedings
initiated by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 therein.
17. We further clarify that we have not expressed any opinion
on the merits or demerits of the case or on the contentions
canvassed by both the learned Senior Counsel.
18. Before parting, since the matter is pending before
various forums for the last 11 years, we request the High Court
to decide the lis between the parties as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
Page 7
7
Ordered accordingly.
........................J. (H.L. DATTU)
........................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 21, 2012