Changed poll result due to “immense pressure,” T. Kallupatti Returning Officer tells HC

Though an independent had won from Ward 10 through draw of lots, the RO had declared DMK candidate as winner

The Returning Officer of T. Kallupattti Town Panchayat in Madurai district on Monday told the Madras High Court that though an independent candidate had won the polls from ward number 10, he declared the DMK candidate as a winner because of “immense pressure” exerted on him.

Shocked to hear such submission, Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy directed the officer to file an affidavit by March 18 explaining the kind of pressure exerted on him to change the election result. They also directed the DMK candidate, K. Subbulakshmi, to file her counter affidavit.

The judges said the issue was serious and therefore, they would pass detailed orders after the filing of the affidavits. The issue had come to light after the independent candidate R. Palaniselvi filed a writ petition, through her counsel S.M.A. Jinnah, stating that she and the DMK candidate had secured 284 votes each.

As per rules, the elector had to be chosen through draw of lots in case of a tie between two candidates. Accordingly, there was a draw of lots and the petitioner won. However, the official in-charge declared Ms. Subbulakshmi to have the won the polls and hence she rushed to the court complaining about the illegality.

Since the High Court had, in another case before the polls, ordered video coverage of the entire urban local bodies poll process in the State right from filing of nominations to counting of votes, the judges called for the CCTV footage of the draw of lots carried out in T. Kallupatti on the day of counting of votes on February 22.

Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission (TNSEC) submitted the footage. It was played in the open court hall and the video recording proved that it was the writ petitioner, and not the DMK candidate, who had won the draw of lots. Immediately, the judges directed the TNSEC to declare the petitioner as the winner and summoned the RO.

Accordingly, the officer appeared before the court and claimed that he was pressurised to change the election result. On his part, the TNSEC counsel said, the commission had complied with the court order to declare the writ petitioner as the elected candidate and uploaded the correct result on its website.