The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the DMK MP against the Madras High Court’s decision to investigate a petition challenging his election as Thoothukudi MP in 2019.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it understood the stand of DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi that it could not falsely accuse it of “suppressing material facts” to disclose the truth in its nomination papers for the 2019 general elections, which That he was a foreign national and he did not keep the pan.
Chief Justice Sharad A. A bench headed by Bobde was hearing an appeal by Ms. Kanimozhi to examine the petition filed against the Madras High Court verdict. a. Santhana Kumar challenged her election as Thoothukudi MP in 2019. High Court proceedings in January last year.
Senior Advocate for Ms. Kanimozhi. Wilson said that Mr. Kumar was a voter who started a frivolous litigation. His election petition was dismissed.
“My husband, who is a foreigner, does not have PAN… This truth has been declared as nomination. How can the disclosure of truth be called suppression of material facts? Mr. Wilson asked.
“We understand what you are saying. that it [disclosure of PAN] There is no need … that the only thing you have to reveal is nationality and not that [husband] Whether or not one holds a PAN, ”Chief Justice Bobde acknowledged Mr. Wilson’s subjection.
Initially, the CJI asked Mr Wilson why his side was “trying to stop the lawsuit”.
Mr. Wilson immediately refused to do anything to stop the trial.
The court said that it would take up the matter again after completing the pleas of service for all the respondents. Mr Wilson stated that 32 out of 38 respondents were served.
Ms Kanimozhi said in her appeal that the High Court had wrongly considered a petition that was “vague and without material facts”.
The High Court acted on the assumption that Ms. Kanimozhi refused to disclose her husband’s or her PAN.
“Petitioner [Kanimozhi] Has explicitly mentioned that her husband does not have a PAN number. If the first respondent (Kumar) stated that this statement is false, then he should confirm the allegation that the statement is false. Without these averments, the bald and vague statement that the petitioner did not provide his spouse’s PAN cannot be retained in the election petition in the light of several decisions of the Supreme Court, “the petition in the Supreme Court stated .
Ms. Kanimozhi had asked whether it was justified on behalf of the High Court to add the average in the election petition in relation to the income tax reference number of the petitioner’s husband?
The petition also states that when the election petitioner does not come to an average of whether the petitioner’s spouse has a PAN card or any such card in Singapore, was it correct to allege.
Mr. Kumar, in his election petition, has not brought a single material fact to substantiate his case that Ms. Kanimozhi’s nomination was improper. In fact, Ms. Kanimozhi stated that her election petition contained hollow allegations like the mantra.
.
Add Comment