The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) president and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, in which he had raised allegations concerning irregularities in the post-election verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) used in the Kolathur Assembly constituency.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that Stalin’s petition was not maintainable. The detailed reasoning of the Court is awaited.
The litigation arose from the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election, in which Stalin contested from Kolathur. He was defeated by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate VS Babu, who secured the seat, with Stalin finishing second.
Following the declaration of the result on May 4, Stalin sought verification of 14 EVM sets, corresponding to five per cent of the 286 EVMs deployed in the constituency. The request was made under the verification mechanism arising from the Supreme Court’s directions in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India.
Stalin submitted his application for verification on May 7, within the stipulated period. However, according to his case, the verification exercise commenced only on July 29.
The subsequent verification process became the basis for his challenge before the High Court. Stalin alleged that certain discrepancies had emerged during the exercise and questioned the manner in which the EVM-related verification had been conducted.
Among the issues relied upon were alleged VVPAT failures at polling stations 28 and 75, discrepancies concerning address tags at polling station 79 and alleged deficiencies in the chain of custody of election equipment at polling station 157.
A further allegation concerned polling station 208, where Stalin claimed that the Control Unit failed to detect a Ballot Unit bearing his name.
Stalin’s challenge was met at the threshold by the Election Commission of India (ECI), which questioned the maintainability of the writ petition.
The poll panel relied upon Article 329(b) of the Constitution, contending that an election can be called into question only through an election petition in accordance with the statutory framework. It further invoked Sections 80 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to argue that the legislation prescribes the appropriate mechanism for challenging an election result.
According to the ECI, Stalin’s attempt to invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 effectively amounted to a challenge to the validity of the election through a route not contemplated by the constitutional and statutory scheme.
The Commission also pointed to the reliefs sought by Stalin, including a challenge to the election of Babu and a consequential claim that Stalin himself be treated as the returned candidate. It argued that such reliefs fell squarely within the domain of an election petition.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Stalin, resisted the preliminary objection. He argued that the circumstances surrounding the EVM verification created a procedural difficulty because the verification sought by Stalin was conducted only after the statutory period for instituting an election petition had elapsed.
Sibal contended that Stalin had approached the ECI within five days of the election result seeking verification, whereas the actual opening and verification of the machines took place after the 45-day period ordinarily available for filing an election petition.
The senior counsel therefore maintained that the alleged irregularities came to light only through the verification exercise and that treating an election petition as the only available remedy would leave the petitioner without an effective avenue to challenge the alleged defects.
Stalin’s side also argued that the post-result EVM verification mechanism constituted a distinct process flowing from the Supreme Court’s directions and could not simply be equated with an ordinary election challenge under the Representation of the People Act.
The High Court, however, has now declined to entertain the petition, holding it to be not maintainable.
The ruling comes against the backdrop of an intensely contested Tamil Nadu electoral landscape, where questions surrounding the integrity of the voting process and the legal avenues available to challenge election outcomes have increasingly come under judicial scrutiny.
With the detailed order yet to be released, the precise reasoning behind the High Court’s decision, including its treatment of the interplay between the Supreme Court-mandated EVM verification process and the constitutional bar under Article 329(b), is expected to assume significance.
The litigation also underscores a recurring tension in election law: while the law provides mechanisms for post-election scrutiny and verification, challenges capable of affecting the validity of an election are subject to a tightly prescribed statutory and constitutional framework.
The post Madras High Court rejects MK Stalin’s plea over alleged EVM verification irregularities in Kolathur appeared first on India Legal.