HC dismisses petition challenging Supriya Sule's 2009 Lok Sabha election
A petition filed by Mrinalini Kakde challenging Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) MP Supriya Sule's election to the Lok Sabha in 2009 on grounds that she had purchased property in Singapore and attained citizenship of the country, was dismissed by the Bombay high court on Friday.mumbai Updated: Apr 14, 2012 02:14 IST
A petition filed by Mrinalini Kakde challenging Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) MP Supriya Sule's election to the Lok Sabha in 2009 on grounds that she had purchased property in Singapore and attained citizenship of the country, was dismissed by the Bombay high court on Friday.
The court was of the view that even though it had been established that Sule had property in Singapore, it did not mean she owed allegiance to that country.
Justice RC Chavan held that merely because a person had business interests in a foreign country, it could not be equated with interest of the country of origin being compromised.
A person who holds a position in the legislature is expected to have no extra territorial strings attached to ensure that they function independently, the court observed. However, that does not mean the respondent (Sule) owed allegiance to a foreign country and forsook the country of origin, the court held. "Then Indians would have to confine themselves to India and not pursue any global ambitions," justice Chavan held.
Sule's counsel, Mohan Jaykar had argued that acquiring property in a foreign country did not amount to allegiance to that country.
Kakde, who had lost to Sule in the elections, had moved an application urging the court to issue witness summons to Mahendran Muthusamy, consular officer Singapore Consulate-General in Mumbai.
The court held that although Sule's share holdings were mentioned in the affidavit, a break-up of each holding may not have been given and there were no documents to show that she held shares in a leading regional newspaper as claimed by the petitioner.
There is nothing to show that the information furnished by the respondent (Sule) was incorrect, the court observed. Therefore, there is nothing based on which Sule's election can be held as void, the court concluded.