Vijay argued that the petitioner failed to demonstrate how alleged inclusion of children in campaign activities translates into a statutory ground under Section 100 of RPA, 1951
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) chief C Joseph Vijay has submitted a “reject the plaint” application before the Madras High Court, asserting that the alleged involvement of children in an election campaign does not constitute a valid legal ground under the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, to declare an election void.
The application was presented before Justice V Lakshminarayanan in response to an election petition filed by DMK rival candidate S Inigo Irudayaraj, who challenged Vijay’s victory from the Tiruchi East Assembly constituency.
‘Lack of Statutory Basis Under the Representation of the People Act’
Vijay’s legal team argued that the election petitioner failed to demonstrate how the alleged inclusion of children in campaign activities translates into a statutory ground under Section 100 of the RPA, 1951.
Key arguments raised in the rejection application include:
- Absence of Statutory Link: Directives issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) prohibiting child involvement or general provisions of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) do not, by themselves, automatically constitute independent statutory grounds to annul an election under Section 100 of the Act.
- Failure to Prove Impact on Poll Outcome: The petition lacks essential material facts showing how the alleged campaign practices directly resulted in a specific number of votes being cast in Vijay’s favour or otherwise materially affected the final electoral outcome.
- Vague Assertions: Legal counsel emphasised that subjective claims alleging voters were “emotionally swayed” cannot substitute the concrete evidentiary proof required by law to challenge a democratic mandate.
Dismissal of Expenditure and Religious Misuse Claims
Addressing secondary allegations regarding excessive campaign expenditure and the alleged use of religious sentiments for votes, the Chief Minister countered that the claims were devoid of specific facts. The response pointed out that the petitioner failed to provide exact communications, representations, or precise details to substantiate the charges.