Chennai: Can suppression of the purchase of a property worth a few lakhs, by a person who owns properties worth more than ₹600 crore, amount to undue influence of a voter? If one goes to a house of a voter and gives him ₹500 to vote for him, it would constitute undue influence, not mere suppression of purchase of a property, Madras high court said on Wednesday while hearing a plea challenging the election of minister C Joseph Vijay from Perambur assembly constituency.When Vijay, a super star in cinema, has disclosed more than ₹600 crore, will non-disclosure of a few lakhs vitiate his election, Justice V Lakshminarayanan wondered.Responding, N C Ashok Kumar, counsel for petitioner Dinesh, a voter from Perambur, said that tendering money cannot simply be equated with the entire definition of undue influence under the Representation of People Act. This apart, the court should not decide the substantiality, truth or ultimate tenability of the allegation at this stage of deciding an application seeking to reject the plaint, provided the petition contains the necessary material facts and particulars, he said. “If an act is calculated to interfere with the free exercise of an electoral right, that is the true and effective test of whether or not a candidate is guilty of undue influence,” counsel added.Secondly, contesting an election is not a fundamental right. It is governed by a statute. When a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be followed, Ashok Kumar said. “Nobody compels a person to contest an election. But once a person chooses to contest, he has to comply with the statutory requirements,” he added.Recording the submissions, the court adjourned the hearing to Thursday.
