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