10 hrs ago
Madras High Court Rejects Stalin’s Kolathur Election Challenge
M K Stalin lost the Kolathur Assembly election to V S Babu.
Stalin said there were problems when voting machines and paper vote records were checked.
He asked the court to check every machine and count all the paper records.
He also asked the court to cancel Babu’s election and declare him the winner.
The Madras High Court said this was really a challenge to the election result itself.
The judges said such challenges must use a special election-petition process, not a regular writ petition.
The court did not decide whether the machine problems actually happened.
Those questions may still be examined in the proper election forum.
The Madras High Court dismissed M K Stalin’s writ petition challenging his Kolathur election defeat.
The court said disputes seeking to invalidate an election must be brought through an election petition.
Stalin had requested complete VVPAT counting and verification of all 286 EVMs in the constituency.
His petition alleged VVPAT malfunctions, irregular seals and tags, and a Control Unit failure.
The court left the alleged irregularities unresolved, saying they require a full trial and possible expert evidence.
- Who
- Former Chief Minister and DMK president M K Stalin challenged the election of TVK candidate V S Babu.
- What
- The Madras High Court dismissed Stalin’s writ petition seeking EVM and VVPAT verification and changes to the Kolathur result.
- Where
- The dispute concerns the Kolathur Assembly constituency in Tamil Nadu and was heard by the Madras High Court.
- When
- The judgment was delivered on September 3, after being reserved on August 31; the election was held in April.
- Why
- The court held that Stalin’s requested relief challenged the election result and therefore had to be pursued through an election petition under Article 329(b) and Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act.
Stalin’s legal position
Court and election-law position
Nature of the challenge
Stalin’s legal position
Stalin’s lawyers argued that the case concerned a separate post-result administrative verification process, not the election itself.
Court and election-law position
The court said the request to void Babu’s election and declare Stalin elected directly challenged the election result.
Alleged voting-machine irregularities
Stalin’s legal position
Stalin alleged problems involving VVPAT units, machine seals and tags, a Control Unit, unanswered technical questions, and missing video footage.
Court and election-law position
The court did not determine whether the irregularities occurred, saying they require a full trial, expert evidence, and proof of material impact on the result.
Election-petition deadline
Stalin’s legal position
Stalin’s lawyers argued that delays by election authorities caused the 45-day deadline for an election petition to expire.
Court and election-law position
The court said the effect of the delay on limitation should be considered by the appropriate election forum, not resolved through writ jurisdiction.
Key facts
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Petitioner
- M K Stalin
- Kolathur result
- Stalin finished second to V S Babu.
- Verification request
- Stalin sought checking of EVMs from 14 of Kolathur’s 286 polling stations.
- Verification period
- The checking began on July 29 and concluded on August 5.
- Allegations
- The petition cited VVPAT malfunctions, irregular seals and address tags, and a Control Unit failing to detect a Ballot Unit.
- Requested relief
- Stalin sought a 100 per cent VVPAT count, verification of all 286 machines, and cancellation of Babu’s election.
Sources
Related news
Madras High Court Dismisses Stalin’s Challenge to TVK Victory
Stalin Challenges Kolathur Result, Seeks Full VVPAT Verification
Madras HC to Assess Stalin Petition Against TVK Kolathur Win
Madras High Court Rejects Stalin’s Kolathur VVPAT Plea
Madras High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Stalin’s Kolathur Defeat
Madras High Court Extends Stay on Five Tamil Nadu Bypolls
