Whereas dismissing a writ petition filed by former CM and Chief of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, MK Stalin, difficult the victory of TVK’s VS Babu on alleged EVM failure, the Madras Excessive Courtroom held that the grounds raised by Stalin couldn’t be gone into in a writ petition.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan famous that whereas Stalin had alleged infirmities within the checking and verification course of, the aid was past the method and referred to as into query the victory of the returned candidate itself. Such a prayer, the court docket stated, was barred underneath Article 329(b) of the Structure.
“The petitioner doesn’t merely search a contemporary or extra thorough verification, he seeks a declaration that the election of the fourth respondent, the returned candidate, is void, and an extra declaration that he himself be declared the duly elected candidate for No.13, Kolathur Meeting Constituency. These are reliefs that go to the very root of the election and its consequence. Regardless of how the pleadings are structured, a prayer of this description is, in substance, nothing however a problem to the correctness of the election and squarely attracts the bar underneath Article 329(b) of the Structure of India,” the court docket stated.
The court docket additionally discovered power within the argument of the ECI that entertaining such petitions would open a pandora’s field. The court docket held that if such anomalies had been taken as a foundation for a writ searching for to unseat an elected candidate, the statutory scheme prescribed for an election petition can be rendered wholly illusory and the aim of Article 329(b) can be misplaced.
“If each such anomaly, as pleaded on this writ petition, is made a foundation for submitting the writ petition searching for to unseat the returned candidate and to declare the runner-up elected, the statutory scheme of election petitions, hedged as it’s with limitation, verified pleadings, safety for prices and recrimination, can be rendered wholly illusory. Each defeated candidate positioned second or third would have a prepared different to the election petition, and the finality that Article 329(b) of the Structure of India seeks to safe for the structure of legislative our bodies can be misplaced,” the court docket stated.
Although Stalin had relied on the choice of the Supreme Courtroom in Affiliation for Democratic Reforms v Election Fee of India, which allowed candidates who got here 2nd and threerd to hunt checking and verification of burnt reminiscence of Management Unit, Poll Unit and VVPAT in 5% of machines, the court docket famous that the judgment was not supposed to substitute the treatment of an election petition.
The court docket held that the verification course of was allowed as an extra safeguard and never as an alternative. The court docket added that if any materials was collected in the course of the verification course of, it will solely serve to strengthen the evidentiary basis of the election petition, relatively than furnishing an unbiased reason for motion within the writ petition.
“Nothing in that judgment means that an order handed underneath the resultant Commonplace Working Process was supposed to be justiciable underneath Article 226 of the Structure of India in derogation of the statutory election petition treatment, or that the Supreme Courtroom supposed to carve out, for this slender class of post-result verification, an exception to the constitutional bar underneath Article 329(b) of the Structure of India. The verification mechanism was engrafted as an extra safeguard and never in substitution of the treatment of an election petition and, in truth, if any materials is gathered throughout such verification, it will go to strengthen the evidentiary basis of an election petition, relatively than furnish an unbiased reason for motion in writ jurisdiction. The reliance positioned on that judgment, due to this fact, doesn’t advance the petitioner’s case on maintainability,” the court docket stated.
The court docket additionally took word of Stalin’s submission that the verification course of itself was carried out after expiry of 45 days, the time interval for submitting an election petition. Nonetheless, the court docket famous that such an argument couldn’t be used to enlarge the jurisdiction of the court docket underneath Article 226 of the Structure when there was an specific bar underneath Article 329(b).
The court docket added that the extent of delay, whether or not it will be thought of whereas making an allowance for the limitation interval, and whether or not any treatment was obtainable to Stalin had been issues to be thought of by the Election Tribunal, by the use of an election petition. The court docket added that even when there was a real issue, it may solely be a floor to be urged earlier than the election tribunal.
Thus, although the court docket dismissed the plea as not maintainable, the court docket left it open to Stalin to method the court docket by the use of an election petition.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.Kapil Sibal Senior Counsel and Mr.J.Ravindran Senior Counsel for Ms.Aruna Elango and Mr.Agilesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Dama Seshadri Naidu Senior Counsel and Mr.G.Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan Stdg. Counsel, Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel for M/s.Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, and Yash S.Vijay Mr.G.Murugendran
Case Title: MK Stalin v Election Fee of India and Others
Quotation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 425
Case No: WP 34892 of 2026
