Madras High Court dismisses MK Stalin's

The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition from Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) president MK Stalin seeking to overturn his defeat in the Kolathur assembly constituency. A bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan ruled the plea was not maintainable.

A detailed written order from the court is still awaited. The bench reserved its decision on Monday after hearing arguments from senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing Stalin, and senior counsels G Rajagopal and Dama Seshadri Naidu, who appeared for the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The Election Commission's Argument

The ECI contended that Stalin's writ petition was legally inadmissible. It cited Article 329(b) of the Constitution and Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. These provisions state that a race for a parliamentary or assembly constituency can be challenged only by filing a formal election petition.

The commission argued that entertaining a cleverly and artfully drafted writ petition to set aside a poll would lead to the opening of a pandora's box. It maintained that the proper legal channel for grievances was through the election petition process.

Stalin's Legal Basis and Claims

Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that Stalin's case was not based on a constitutional or statutory provision but on a 2024 Supreme Court judgment. That ruling, in the case of Association for Democratic Reforms versus Election Commission of India, permitted a runner-up or third-place finisher to request verification of the burnt memory or microcontroller in 5% of the EVMs by a team of engineers from the EVM manufacturers.

Sibal stated that, as per the Supreme Court, any such application must be made within seven days of the result declaration. Stalin, who lost the contest by 8,795 votes, filed his application within three days of the results being declared on May 4 this year. The vote counts were as follows:

However, the ECI began verifying 14 of the 286 EVM sets used in Kolathur only on July 29, 2026. This was well after the expiry of the 45-day statutory period for filing an election petition. The verification process concluded on August 5, 2026.

Stalin informed the court that he encountered serious anomalies during the EVM verification. He cited an instance where one unit failed to recognise his name. Whether Your Lordships give me relief or not is another matter, but this must be investigated. What's the explanation for this? He asked the court.

The Issue of Procedural Delay

A key part of Sibal's argument focused on the delay in the verification process. He submitted that his client could not have been expected to file an election petition within the prescribed 45-day period when the ECI itself had delayed the verification. The petitioner, he argued, should not be left without a legal remedy due to a delay over which he had no control.

The court's dismissal means Stalin's attempt to have VVPAT slips counted and the victory of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA VS Babu nullified has been halted at this stage. The ruling highlights the procedural primacy of the election petition as the designated method for contesting poll results.