Madras HC moved for action against DMK, AIADMK candidates expenditure

The petition also wanted the court to restrain the EC from receiving the nomination forms from the candidates of AIADMK and DMK for the elections

By: PTI | Chennai | Published:November 2, 2016 8:07 am
Madras High Court, madras hc, dmk, aiadmk, election commission, candidates expenditure, tamil nadu politics, india news, latest news, indian express Madras High Court (File)

A petition has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking an enquiry by the Election Commission into the expenditure of candidates of AIADMK and DMK in Thanjavur and Aravakurichi Assembly constituencies prior to cancellation of the elections in May last following corrupt practices. The petitioner sought a direction to the EC to hold an enquiry under section 10 A (disqualification for failure to lodge account of election expenses) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the four candidates.

Watch What Else Is Making News

The petition by T P Balasubramaniam also wanted the court to restrain the EC from receiving the nomination forms from the candidates of AIADMK and DMK for the elections, now scheduled for November 19, in view of their “proven corrupt practices”.

He claimed that the EC had received a large number of complaints about distribution of money against the candidates of AIADMK (V Senthil Balaji and M Rangamsamy) and DMK (K C Palanisamy and Anjugiam Boopathi). Raids were conducted and huge sums of cash were seized.

Referring to the orders passed by the EC cancelling the elections to the two constituencies following seizure of huge money and corrupt practices, the petitioner wanted an enquiry under section 10 A of the RPA.

When the plea came up for hearing Tuesday, counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would confine the plea that it was the bounden duty of the EC to look into the election expenses made by the candidates even in a case where elections had been cancelled.

This was required to find out whether even at that stage, the election expenses permissible had been exceeded or not.

As the counsel for the EC was not available, the court posted the plea to November 7 for further hearing.