Court asks EC to act on Jaya's 'false' claim

In what may create fresh problems for AIADMK chief Jayalalithaa, the Madras High Court today said that prima facie there was sufficient evidence to take action against her for allegedly filing a false election declaration. The court said flagrant violation of law by people in high positions should not be taken lightly.

Strongly disapproving Jayalalithaa's conduct, the court directed the Election Commission (EC) to initiate action against her within six weeks.

A Bench comprising Justice Dharmarao Elipe and Justice S Palanivelu passed the order on a PIL from DMK MP C Kuppusamy.

The petitioner sought a direction to the Chief Election Commissioner to take action against Jayalalithaa under Section 177 of the IPC for hiding the fact that she was contesting from four seats in the 2001 Assembly polls. A candidate can contest only from two seats.

"Persons holding high offices/positions should be role models to the general public and if they venture to commit flagrant violations of the rules and laws made, that too knowingly, as in this case, it should not be taken lightly," the court said.

Criticising the EC, the court said, "The respondents, including the EC, have not acted in the manner required by law.This court is able to find delay at each and every stage of the consideration of the representations of the petitioner and others against Jayalalithaa."

In New Delhi, Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami said, "If the High Court has said that action should be taken within a specified period, we will do that."

The judges said, "In our view, the petitioner has raised many justifiable and reasonable apprehensions of miscarriage of justice and likelihood of bias."

"We hold that the present petition had not been filed out of political vendetta or for personal gains," they observed, adding it was filed only when the official respondents failed to discharge their duty.

Dismissing arguments by Jayalalithaa that the issue had become infructous due to the time lag, the court said it had the power to condone the delay if the delay had been properly explained or it was necessary to do so in the interest of justice.

Jayalalithaa's contention that there was no suppression of facts could not be appreciated since "production of the earlier declarations at the time of scrutiny does not erase the illegality or the criminality or the violation of the provisions of law, committed by Jayalalithaa, which appears to be knowingly also," the Bench said.

"On the other hand, the petitioner, by way of filing this petition, is able to prove that in spite of voluminous material available to prove the guilt of Jayalalithaa, the Election Commission of India had not exercised their power to initiate action against her," it said.