Supreme Court dismisses election petition against DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi

such card in Singapore, was it correct on the part of the High Court to frame such an allegation?,” Mr. Wilson asked.

Agreeing, the Supreme Court held that if Ms. Kanimozhi had “suppressed information about the PAN of her spouse and also about his non-payment of income tax in the foreign country, it was obligatory on the part of the election petitioner [Mr. Kumar] to state in the election petition what was the PAN of the spouse of the returned candidate in India that was suppressed by her and how the other details furnished about her husband in Form No. 26 were incomplete or false”.

The court laid down that in an election petition “not only positive statement of facts, even a positive statement of negative fact is also required to be stated, as it would be a material fact constituting a cause of action”.“Section 83(1)(a) of RP Act mandates that an election petition should contain a concise statement of material facts on which the election petitioner relies on, and which facts constitute a cause of action. Such facts would include a positive statement of facts as also positive averment of negative fact...,” Justice Trivedi held.