The petitioners alleged that Chandrasekhar deliberately omitted his assets including his properties, luxury cars and private jets and also grossly undervalued his shares in various companies.
The PIL moved by advocate and Indian National Congress leader Avani Bansal and one Renjith Thomas alleged that it is a rampant practice for candidates contesting in elections to file false affidavits along with their nominations.
The petitioners claimed that as public-spirited individuals, they filed a complaint in this regard against Chandrasekhar before the returning officer in Thiruvananthapuram. They added that they had also provided prima facie evidence to justify an enquiry into the allegations.
As per the plea, the statutory authority to enquire into complaints made against candidates is the returning officer and he is required to give a speaking order with regard to any complaints that are made.
However, in this case, the returning officer is yet to give any order or report on the complaints, the petition stated.
“The nomination submitted by the 4th respondent (Chandrasekhar) is in utter and repeated violation of the relevant provision sof the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950, the Conduct of Election Rules 1961, and as per the compendium given on the Election Commission of India’s website,” the plea said.
It pointed out that filing a false affidavit is punishable under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend upto 6 months or with a fine, or both.
Source: Barandbench
