In a strongly worded statement, DMK treasurer and senior minister Arcot N Veerasamy accused the EC of “supporting’ Jayalalithaa. The EC, he pointed out, was supposed to be non-partisan and provide justice to all.

Based on a petition filed by Jayalalithaa, the Supreme Court on July 10 ordered status quo with regard to two cases filed by the Election Commission against her in Bhuvanagiri and Pudukottai. The EC had registered the cases against Jayalalithaa as per directions from the Madras High Court for submitting false affidavits when she filed the four nominations.

The Election Commission submitted that the Returning Officers of Bhuvanagiri and Pudukottai said Jayalalithaa had not suppressed any information, as the declarations filed by her earlier in Andipatti and Krishnagiri were made available to them and hence no action was necessary against her. These two nominations were also rejected at that time. Moreover, the Returning Officers were the appropriate authority to decide whether a false declaration had been made or not and whether action was necessitated under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, the EC said.

Veerasamy, in his statement, said the EC by submitting to the Supreme Court that Jayalalithaa had not committed any mistake, eroded the common man’s trust in the organisation and its ability to maintain neutrality.

He pointed out that the Madras High Court had directed the EC to file cases against Jayalalithaa for furnishing false information. Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswamy had ordered the Returning Officers of Bhuvanagiri and Pudukottai to file cases against her. Now the EC has stated before the Supreme Court that she had not committed any mistake.

Meanwhile, in his response (as sought by the Supreme Court), DMK MP C Kuppusamy, on whose petition the High Court had issued the direction to the Election Commission, alleged that Jayalalithaa had “exerted undue influence” on the Returning Officers who “did not perform their duties properly”.

As for Jayalalithaa’s contention that the nominations filed in the third and fourth constituencies were not in confirmation with law, Kuppusamy said: “The declarations made before the Returning Officers of all four constituencies are liable for punishment as they are grave crimes.”