The Madras High Court on Friday (February 28, 2025) expressed anguish over most criminal cases against politicians not reaching their logical end due to the “usual dilatory tactics” adopted by government officials in lodging complaints under relevant laws.
Third Division Bench of Justices R. Subramanian and G. Arul Murugan also clarified that when they refer to politicians, they mean those belonging to all parties across the political spectrum, irrespective of whether they are in power or not.
The observations were made while disposing of a case wherein the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission (TNSEC) expressed helplessness, saying only the government officials concerned could pursue complaints regarding the filing of false affidavits by electoral candidates.
After recording the submission, the Division Bench directed the Chief Secretary to initiate action against those who had held the post of Tiruvarur Collector since March 2, 2023, when a district panchayat ward member was found to have suppressed details regarding his wealth in his election affidavit.
False affidavit case
The judges said, the present writ petitioner, D. Sarathbabu, had lodged a complaint with the TNSEC as early as August 24, 2021, accusing the district panchayat member S. Papa Subramaniyan of having been elected in 2019 without disclosing the full details of assets owned by him and his family.
The TNSEC forwarded the complaint to the Tiruvarur Collector. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by the Tamil Nadu Rural Livelihood Mission Director (Projects), who on March 2, 2023, found that the elected representative had suppressed details regarding his wealth in the affidavit filed with his election nomination.
However, after sitting over the findings of the inquiry for seven months, the Project Director wrote to the Tiruvarur Superintendent of Police only on October 27, 2023, with a request to initiate appropriate criminal prosecution, and marked a copy of his letter to the Collector.
The Police department wrote back to the Project Director stating that a complaint for the offence under Section 177 (furnishing false information to a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) should be filed by the Returning Officer concerned directly before the jurisdictional judicial magistrate.
The Project Director was also informed that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires prosecution under Section 177 of the IPC to be initated by way of a private complaint and not through the police. Nevertheless, the matter did not proceed further and hence, the present writ petition was filed in August 2024.
Section 177 of IPC
When the High Court called for an explanation, the TNSEC told the court that it becomes functus officio after the completion of elections and that any complaint received thereafter regarding the filing of false affidavits could only be forwarded to the government officials concerned for necessary action.
Senior Counsel P.R. Raman, representing the TNSEC, also said that an offence under Section 177 of IPC carries a maximum punishment of only six months of imprisonment and therefore, even if the panchayat ward member had got convicted for the offence, he would not have suffered any disqualification.
The counsel said, the law pertaining to the panchayats prescribes disqualification only if an elected representative had got sentenced for more than two years in any criminal case and also for specific grave offences, which does not include the offence under Section 177 of the IPC.
‘Doesn’t justify inaction’
After recording his submissions, the judges said, just because an elected representative would not have suffered disqualification, even if he had got convicted for a particular offence, it does not justify the inaction on the part of government authorities in prosecuting him for the offence.
Holding that every candidate in an election, irrespective of him/her getting elected or not, was liable to be prosecuted for suppressing information in their affidavits, the judges said: “Unfortunately, in the case at hand, by resorting to the usual dilatory tactics, both the District Collector and the Project Director have successfully defeated the provisions of the law.”
On being told that a private complaint in the present case had been lodged before the jurisdictional magistrate only on February 25, 2025, the judges said, there was a threat of it becoming barred by limitation unless the magistrate condones the delay of two long years after finding some justification to do so.
Insisting that such situations should be avoided in the future, the judges said, they only hoped that the “authorities will wake up to their responsibilities at least in the very late future, though we cannot expect them to change in the near future.”
The Bench also said: “This is a classic case where due to official apathy, a person who had allegedly filed false information in an affidavit filed by him under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules of 1995 has not only completed his tenure as a member of the district panchayat but also escaped any consequence of criminal action.”
