DMK candidate R.D. Shekar, who had lost in the Perambur Assembly constituency and filed an election petition, has failed to submit materials to prove that music composer S. Thaman was paid ₹10 lakh to compose the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam’s election campaign song ‘Thani oruvan vedichu varaan, visillu onnu adichu varaan,’ Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay has told the Madras High Court.
In an affidavit filed in support of his application to reject the election petition, Mr. Vijay highlighted that the election petitioner had only claimed to have “reasonably learnt” that the composer Ghantasala Sai Srinivas, professionally known as Thaman, “would have charged ₹10 lakh.” Therefore, the claim of such a payment having been made was “purely conjectural”.
“The election petition does not plead that ₹10 lakh was actually paid, incurred or authorised. The petition does not plead plead any contract, invoice, receipt, quotation, actual payment, date of payment, payer, payee, reimbursement or other transaction demonstrating that expenditure of ₹10 lakh was in fact incurred,” the affidavit read.
Mr. Vijay said, similarly, the election petition does not rely upon any material with precision to prove the other alleged expenses incurred by him over and above the statutory ceiling of ₹40 lakh during the course of campaigning. “It merely aggregates estimated and assumed amounts, several of which themselves lack the foundational facts of incurring, payment and authorisation,” he said.
Foreign contributor
He also contended that the election petition does not plead the identity of any foreign contributor or the amount of the alleged foreign contribution received for the election campaign. “Without prejudice, the mere existence of a social media account operated by a person residing outside India does not constitute the material fact of receipt of foreign funds,” he added.
The court was also told that the election petitioner had failed to establish how the loans offered by the Chief Minister to his children and whether that money was reflected in their income tax returns or not had materially affected the result of the election in which the petitioner had lost by a margin of 53,715 votes with Mr. Vijay securing 1,20,365 votes as against 66,650 votes secured by the petitioner.
He also stated that his mere physical presence in places of worship during the election campaign could not be termed as a corrupt practice. “Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires full particulars in respect of a corrupt practice. But the election petition does not set out the words constituting the religious appeal, the precise communication, the audience or electors to whom it was addressed,” he said.
