When Narendra Modi, BJP’s prime ministerial candidate, described Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram as ‘Mr Recounting Minister’ during the mammoth election rally at Chennai on Saturday evening, he would not have known that the new name will spread like wildfire across the State.
The Finance Minister himself had to come out and claim that there was no recount in the 2009 lok Sabha election from Sivaganga constituency in Tamil Nadu. But it is an open secret that the counting of votes and declaration of the 2009 lok Sabha election result at Sivaganga is enmeshed in mystery.
Though the returning officer initially declared that Chidambaram lost the election, the former had to retract the announcement. At the end of the day Chidambaram was declared elected by a wafer thin majority of 3,354 votes, the lowest margin of victory from south India.
Many national TV channels flashed the news that Chidambaram lost from Sivaganga and had conceded defeat which were subsequently modified. A search in the google elicits news ‘Chidambaram loses at Sivaganga to the AIADMK candidate’. According to the Election Commission announcement, Chidambaram polled 3,34,348 votes while Raja Kannappan, his nearest AIADMK rival came a close second by polling 3,30,994 votes. The plea by Kannappan for a recount was rejected by the returning officer who declared the result officially only by 8 30 pm, according to G Murugendran, Madras High Court lawyer appearing for one of the petitioners. In between, there were many telephonic calls to the returning officer from the Chief Minister’s office at Chennai.
Kannappan approached the Madras High Court challenging the decision of the returning officer. He also demanded that Chidambaram’s win should be declared as void since it was ‘managed’ through manipulation of votes and corrupt practices. Chidambaram filed case after case against Kannappan’s plea which were all dismissed by the court. He managed to prolong the hearing process under one pretext or another.
In usual circumstances, the court should have disposed of the petition within one or two years, said G Murugendran, advocate appearing for one of the petitioners. “Justice K Venkataraman, who was hearing the plea retired last year. Following this, the petition was transferred to the bench of Justice S Tamilvanan. But by the time the new bench was to take up the case, Justice Tamilvanan was transferred to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. Now, we have to wait till Justice Tamilvanan returns from Madurai sometime in March,” Murugendran told The Pioneer.
But the Election Commission of India is expected to declare the schedule for the 2014 lok Sabha elections in the first week of March. “The declaration of the lok Sabha schedule would make Kannappan’s election petition infructuous,” said Murugendran. He said it may take another three or four hearings more for the judge to come to a conclusion on the petition by Kannappan.
Saravana Kumar, appearing for Raja Kannappan, had told The Pioneer that Chidambaram was trying to block the progress of the case at each stage. “He was citing procedural laws instead of fighting it out in the court. The court rejected all counter petitions filed by him requesting to throw out the case,” Kumar had said.
What was causing concern to Chidambaram was the sections under which Kannappan filed the petition. “Had the case reached the logical conclusion, Chidambaram would have faced even a ban from contesting future elections,” said Murugendran.