The Madras High Court has dismissed an election petition filed against senior DMK leader Duraimurugan's election from the Katpadi Assembly constituency in the 2021 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. The Court held that the petition failed to disclose the material facts required under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and had also become infructuous after the expiry of the Assembly's term and the conduct of fresh elections.
Background of the Case
The election petition was filed by V. Ramu, the AIADMK candidate who contested against Duraimurugan in the 2021 Assembly election. According to the election results, Duraimurugan secured 85,140 votes, while Ramu received 84,394 votes, resulting in a victory margin of 746 votes.
Ramu sought to have Duraimurugan's election declared void. He also requested re-verification and recounting of all postal ballots, recounting of votes from specified Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) polling stations, and a declaration that he himself should be treated as the returned candidate.
The petitioner alleged that the Returning Officer had failed to follow the prescribed rules while counting postal ballots and had improperly dealt with votes from certain EVMs, thereby materially affecting the election result.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Petitioner's Allegations
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the counting process violated provisions of the Representation of the People Act and the Conduct of Election Rules. He claimed the Returning Officer did not properly scrutinize postal ballots under Rule 54-A and failed to count votes from Polling Station No.110A(W).
According to the petitioner, he had objected during the counting process and requested a recount of postal ballots. He alleged that these objections were ignored and that the election result was declared despite procedural irregularities.
Court's Observations
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan examined whether the petition disclosed sufficient material facts and whether it could continue after the expiry of the Assembly's term.
The Court found that the petition did not specify essential particulars regarding the alleged irregularities in postal ballot counting. It noted that the petitioner had failed to identify the number of disputed postal ballots, explain which ballots allegedly lacked the required seal, or produce evidence showing that objections were formally raised during counting.
The Court also observed that although the petitioner claimed to have submitted a written complaint on the counting day, no contemporaneous complaint or acknowledgment was produced before the Court. Instead, the representation relied upon had been sent by registered post 13 days after the declaration of results.
Referring to Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, the Court emphasized that an election petition must contain a concise but complete statement of material facts.
The bench relied on settled Supreme Court precedent and observed:
"The omission of even a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause of action."
The Court held that vague allegations without supporting particulars cannot sustain an election petition.
Why the Court Rejected the EVM Argument
The Court also examined the petitioner's challenge regarding Polling Station No.110A(W).
It noted that the EVM from that polling station was not counted because officials detected a mismatch caused by 50 mock poll votes that had not been deleted before actual polling commenced. After excluding those mock poll votes, 514 valid votes remained in that polling station.
The Court further noted that after completion of counting, including postal ballots, the victory margin stood at 764 votes, which exceeded the 514 valid votes available in Polling Station No.110A(W). In accordance with the Election Commission of India's instructions dated 21 May 2019, the Returning Officer was therefore justified in declaring the election result without counting that EVM. The Court also found that, contrary to the petitioner's allegations, the EVMs from the other polling stations mentioned in the petition had in fact been counted.
Election Petition Became Infructuous
Apart from finding defects in the pleadings, the Court held that the petition had become infructuous.
It noted that the 2021 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had already completed its term. Fresh Assembly elections had since been conducted, and both the petitioner and Duraimurugan contested again from the Katpadi constituency but were unsuccessful.
Relying on earlier Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the bench held that where an election petition is not founded on allegations of corrupt practice, it ordinarily does not survive after the expiry of the Assembly's term.
The Court observed that nothing survived for adjudication because the relief sought had become purely academic following the subsequent elections.
Decision
Allowing O.A. No.742 of 2021, the Madras High Court dismissed V. Ramu's election petition challenging Duraimurugan's 2021 election from the Katpadi Assembly constituency. The Court held that the petition failed to disclose the mandatory material facts required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act and had, in any event, become infructuous after the expiry of the Assembly's tenure and the conduct of fresh elections. The connected applications were also closed, and the Court made no order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: V. Ramu v. Duraimurugan and Others
Case Number: E.L.P. No. 4 of 2021
Judge: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Decision Date: 07 July 2026
