Stalin’s 2011 election: SC to examine if CDs showing alleged malpractice have been authenticated under Evidence Act

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine if electronic data in the form of videos and photos, contained in compact discs (CDs), allegedly showing corrupt practices committed ahead of the 2011 election of current Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin from the Kolathur Assembly constituency was certified as authenticated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi said the court would also consider if the content of the CDs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The court is hearing an appeal filed by S.S. Duraisamy against Mr. Stalin, alleging that the DMK party used its functionaries and money power to lure voters in his favour, amounting to corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act.

The Madras High Court had dismissed the allegations raised by Mr. Duraisamy for lack of conclusive evidence. It had found that the CDs were infirm for not having complied with the “basic” requirement of a Section 65B certification. Mr. Duraisamy had contended that the DMK party had used the ‘Thirumangalam Formula’ to provide money to the voters in a novel way through community feedings, courier service, currency in newspapers, arathi plate contributions, and slips to purchase consumer items, etc. A goods vehicle had been caught with boxes of currency. However, the averments had not impressed the High Court in June 2017.

It came to an “irresistible conclusion that there was no categorical averment that the first respondent (Mr. Stalin) had given his consent to his party functionaries to bribe the voters and self-help group members with a view to attract a misdeed of ‘corrupt practice’,” the High Court judgment read.

The High Court observed that Mr. Stalin could not possibly be held “vicariously liable” for the alleged act of his party functionaries. “In regard to the allegation of money distribution by the first Respondent’s party by adopting the ‘Thirumangalam Formula’, this court points out that there is no convincing, satisfactory, and acceptable proof produced on the side of the petitioner,” it had noted.