TTV Dhinakaran can't contest RK Nagar by-poll: PIL filed in Madras HC
Chennai: A petition was filed in the Madras high court to restrain the Election Commission of India from accepting the candidature of TTV Dhinakaran for the RK Nagar by-poll. The PIL filed by P.A. Joseph of Arumbakkam is to come up for hearing by the First Bench on Wednesday.
The plea states that Dhinkaran has been convicted in a FERA case, which is still pending. The plea also seeks to declare section 8 (1) © and 8 (1) (e) of the Representation of Peoples Act as illegal in so far as restricting the disqualification only to an extent of criminal conviction alone dehors (out of or other than) the statutory punishment / penalty levied based on a finding by the competent adjudicating authority under the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act on the very same offence.
According to Joseph, Section 8 of the RPA enumerates various disqualifications for being chosen as or for being a MP or MLA. Section 8 (1) © and 8 (1) (3) stated that a person will be disqualified if he or she was convicted under Customs Act and Fera respectively.
There were parallel adjudicatory proceedings prescribed under these Acts and for which separate adjudicating authority was provided dehors criminal prosecution. Both the criminal prosecution and departmental adjudication were initiated for violation of same provision of the Act.
When one authority finds him guilty and imposes the punishment / penalty, and other authority not finding him guilty and acquits him whether the guilt adjudged by the competent authority was erased or nullified, the fact was “It still stands”, he added.
He said the present question of law was never raised and decided and it needs to be decided at this juncture for the reason that one T.T.V.Dhinakaran, claiming to be incharge general secretary of AIADMK, had announced that he was going to contest in a by-election of RK Nagar constituency. He was charged for offences under Fera for acquiring foreign exchange without previous or special permission from the RBI during 1994 and 1995 from persons not being authorised dealers in foreign exchange and deposited the amounts in a bank account outside India.
The adjudicating authority found him guilty and imposed a penalty of Rs 28 crore. In criminal prosecution, a magistrate court had discharged him but the high court set aside the same. On clear reading of the provisions, both the adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings were parallel, so how can the Act restrict the disqualification to criminal conviction alone, he asks.
He said the restriction of disqualification to criminal conviction alone will make the statutory adjudication and their findings was silent on this issue, he added.
