The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard detailed arguments of respondents in an appeal challenging the Madras High Court’s decision upholding Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s 2011 Assembly election victory from the Kolathur constituency.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, questioned the credibility of key witnesses relied upon by the petitioner. He pointed to what he described as “multiple versions” given by a witness regarding his presence at Ishwari Hospital, where money was allegedly distributed.

“Once he says he was present. Then he says he was not present; he was informed by Mahalingam. And then there’s a third version…”

Mr Sibal argued that such inconsistencies strike at the root of the corrupt practice allegation. On the testimony of another witness, Sibal submitted that the evidence was largely hearsay. “How can anybody say something like that? He has no knowledge… Can you ever rely on a statement of this nature and hold corrupt practice against a person?” he argued.

He further contended that none of the alleged self-help group members, police officials, or flying squad personnel were examined to substantiate the claim of money distribution. “The best evidence would have been the Flying Squad. Not summoned,” he submitted.

On the admissibility of video CDs allegedly containing footage of the incident, Mr Sibal argued that the electronic evidence failed to meet the requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Referring to the certificate on record, he submitted that the official who produced the CDs admitted: “I do not know about the contents of the CD.”

“The electronic evidence is the video recording. The person who recorded the video must authenticate that this is the video… In the absence of this evidence, this document is not admissible and cannot be authenticated by a certificate under 65B,” Mr Sibal argued.

He cautioned the Court about the wider consequences of relaxing evidentiary standards in election disputes: “If this is the law, what will happen? Everybody can put a forged document… produce it at the time of cross-examination, and the returned candidate will be unseated.”

The Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi directed that previous High Court and Supreme Court orders relating to the production of the CDs be placed on record.

The matter will continue tomorrow.

Also Read- https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-mk-stalin-2011-election-case-hearing/