Southern States - Tamil Nadu

Sivam episode renews debate on EC curb

By Our Tamil Nadu Bureau

CHENNAI MAY 16. The attempt by the former DMK MLA, Chengai Sivam, to counter the AIADMK propaganda blaming the previous DMK Government for rejection of the nominations filed by Ms. Jayalalithaa in the May 2001 general election might not have met with success. But it has renewed the debate on the provisions in the Representation of the People Act governing acceptance or rejection of nominations filed in more than two constituencies.

While some legal experts are of the opinion that all nominations will have to be rejected if a candidate files papers in more than the statutorily allowed two constituencies, there is a counter argument that the first two nominations have to be accepted. Only those nominations filed later, with a false declaration given by the candidate, should be rejected.

The controversy is accentuated by the different standards adopted by the returning officers. In Andipatti in May 2001, the returning officer rejected Ms. Jayalalithaa's application on two grounds: her conviction for more than two years and her filing nominations in more than two places. Andipatti was the second constituency where she filed her papers.

However, the returning officers in Saidapet and Vaniyambadi allowed the nominations of Mr. Sivam on the ground that these were the first two filed.

In Vaniyambadi, though the Returning Officer initially rejected the nomination, he accepted it following an Election Commission directive.

The argument cited is that the restriction of two constituencies is a disabling provision meant to prevent the candidate from contesting in more than two places, and, therefore, the rejection should apply only to constituencies other than the first two.

But the former Advocate-General, K. Subramaniam says, ``in order to ensure that the prohibition (on contesting in not more than two nominations) under the law is duly observed by all candidates, a declaration to that effect has been prescribed in each form of nomination papers.

The Election Commission has clarified (in the Handbook for Returning Officers) that if a candidate violates this prohibition and files papers for election in more than two constituencies of the same class, his nominations in all such constituencies should be rejected by the Returning Officers for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act.''

According to the senior advocate, K.M. Vijayan, if more than two nominations are filed by the same candidate in the same class of election, all the papers should be rejected. ``These nominations should not be bifurcated into two sets -- first two nominations and then the rest of the nominations''.

P. Wilson, Additional Central standing counsel, says the Returning Officers who failed to reject all nominations in toto are liable for disciplinary action.

``They cannot pick and choose nominations for rejection and acceptance.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Southern States

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Secular front still a distant possibility
• Plus-Two results today
• June 30 deadline for uniform number plates
• Wedding photo proof not easy for divorce-seeking women
• Women still suffer `forced seclusion' here
• Ooty gripped by flower show fever
• 10th century Buddha statue found
• Tamil Internet meet in California from Sept. 27
• Official bars from June
• Sivam episode renews debate on EC curb
• Can the parties build bridges in Vaniyambadi?
• Heroin seizure: NCB writes to Sri Lanka
• `Don't give assent to strike ban bill'
• Counselling for teachers transfer

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu