Archive · 17 Sep 2026
Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to DMK MLA Velu’s Win
E V Velu won the Tiruvannamalai Assembly election by 2,455 votes.
Arul Arumugam asked the Madras High Court to cancel the result.
He said there were problems with nominations, voting, postal ballots, vote counting and electronic voting machines.
He also questioned why 955 postal ballots were rejected.
The court agreed that rejecting so many postal ballots was unusual and alarming.
However, even if all 955 ballots had gone to Arumugam, he still would not have overcome Velu’s winning margin.
The court also said Arumugam’s petition did not give enough specific facts to show that the election was invalid.
It therefore rejected the challenge.
In a separate case, the court also dismissed a challenge to K A Sengottaiyan’s election over the attestation of his election affidavit.
The Madras High Court dismissed Arul Arumugam’s challenge to DMK leader E V Velu’s Tiruvannamalai Assembly election victory.
Velu won with 88,273 votes, defeating Arumugam by 2,455 votes in the poll counted on May 4.
The court called the rejection of 955 postal ballots “abnormal and alarming” but said they could not change the result.
Arumugam alleged nomination, polling, postal-ballot, counting, EVM and VVPAT irregularities, while Velu’s counsel called the claims vague.
The court said the petition lacked specific material facts and a triable issue required to invalidate the election.
- Who
- DMK leader E V Velu and petitioner Arul Arumugam were the main parties; the Madras High Court heard the case.
- What
- The court rejected a petition challenging Velu’s election from Tiruvannamalai.
- When
- The election was held on April 23 and counted on May 4; Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy issued the order on September 16.
- Where
- Tiruvannamalai Assembly constituency in Tamil Nadu; the case was heard by the Madras High Court.
- Why
- The petition was dismissed because it lacked specific material facts and did not show a triable issue capable of invalidating the election.
Petitioner’s Allegations
Returned Candidate’s Response
Postal-ballot rejection
Petitioner’s Allegations
Arul Arumugam argued that rejecting 955 postal ballots was abnormal and alarming and could indicate counting irregularities.
Returned Candidate’s Response
The court held that even if all 955 rejected ballots had supported Arumugam, they would not have overcome Velu’s 2,455-vote margin.
Election procedures
Petitioner’s Allegations
Arumugam alleged irregularities involving nomination scrutiny, polling, EVM/VVPAT procedures, vote counting and mobile-phone use inside the counting centre.
Returned Candidate’s Response
Velu’s counsel argued that the petition relied on vague allegations and failed to provide the specific facts and particulars required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act.
Validity of the election challenge
Petitioner’s Allegations
Arumugam sought to have Velu’s election declared invalid, citing alleged discrepancies in age details, criminal-case disclosures and polling-station procedures.
Returned Candidate’s Response
The court found that the petition did not disclose a clear, clinching and triable issue showing that the election result was vitiated.
- Winning candidate
- E V Velu of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
- Runner-up
- Arul Arumugam of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam
- Vote totals
- Velu received 88,273 votes; Arumugam received 85,818 votes.
- Victory margin
- 2,455 votes
- Rejected postal ballots
- 955, described by the court as “abnormal and alarming”
- Allegations
- The petition cited alleged nomination, polling, postal-ballot, counting, EVM and VVPAT irregularities.
- Separate ruling
- The court also dismissed a challenge to TVK minister K A Sengottaiyan’s Gobichettipalayam election over the notary attestation of his Form 26 affidavit.