Madras HC rejects Stalin's writ plea to overturn Kolathur election result
The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by DMK president M.K. Stalin seeking to nullify the victory of TVK MLA V.S. Babu in the Kolathur Assembly constituency and declare Stalin elected instead. The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that the petition was not maintainable, agreeing with the Election Commission of India's (ECI) argument that an election result can be challenged only through an election petition, not via a writ petition.
Mr. Stalin, a former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, had sought a direction for 100% counting of VVPAT slips and a subsequent declaration that he won the seat after setting aside Mr. Babu's victory. The court, however, refused to entertain the plea after senior counsel G. Rajagopalan and Dama Seshadri Naidu, representing the ECI, contended that permitting such a challenge through a writ petition would open a Pandora's box, flooding the court with similar petitions from numerous candidates.
In his plea, Mr. Stalin argued that he was left with no legal remedy because the ECI delayed the verification of burnt memory/microcontrollers in 5% of the EVMs used in Kolathur. The verification was to be conducted following the Supreme Court's 2024 verdict, which allows the runner-up or third-place candidate to request verification of 5% of EVM sets within seven days of the declaration of results.
Mr. Stalin said he made the request to the ECI within three days of the declaration of results on May 4, 2026. However, the ECI did not complete the verification within the statutory 45-day period for filing an election petition. The verification eventually took place between July 29 and August 5, 2026, during which his representative, senior counsel N.R. Elango, reportedly found anomalies in the functioning of the EVM sets. He contended that the delay was caused by the ECI, not by him, and therefore he could not be left remediless.
Senior counsel V. Raghavachari, appearing for Mr. Babu, opposed the writ petition. The court dismissed the petition on the ground of maintainability without going into the merits of the case.
Legal experts note that the dismissal does not prevent Mr. Stalin from filing an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, though the statutory time limit for such a petition has passed. The specific constitutional remedy sought through the writ route was rejected, reinforcing the principle that election disputes must follow the procedure prescribed by law.
