The Madras High Court on Monday, August 31, said it would examine whether a petition filed by former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK president MK Stalin challenging the Kolathur Assembly election result is legally maintainable.
The petition concerns the election of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate V.S. Babu from the Kolathur constituency in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan reserved orders after hearing arguments from both sides.
Background Of The Case
Stalin has sought 100% counting of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips and verification of all 286 EVMs used in the constituency. He has also challenged the District Election Officer’s decision declaring the post-election EVM verification process successful.
According to Stalin, he applied on May 7, shortly after the election results, for verification of the burnt memory and microcontrollers of 14 EVMs. He submitted that the verification was ultimately carried out on July 29.
Stalin claimed that two EVMs stopped functioning during the verification process and that there were also alleged lapses concerning the identification and custody of certain ballot and control units. He further alleged that one Control Unit failed to detect a Ballot Unit carrying his name.
Maintainability Question Before Court
During Monday’s hearing, the Bench questioned why Stalin had not challenged the election result through an election petition, which is the usual legal route for questioning the election of a returned candidate.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Stalin, argued that the delay in EVM verification had prevented him from effectively pursuing that remedy. He submitted that Stalin had approached the ECI within seven days of the result, but the verification was conducted only after the relevant 45-day period.
Sibal argued that a petitioner should not be left without a remedy because the verification itself was delayed.
ECI Opposes The Plea
Senior Advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission of India, opposed the petition. He argued that Stalin was effectively seeking an election-petition remedy through a writ petition.
The ECI also opposed the request for complete VVPAT counting, contending that the Supreme Court had already dealt with such demands and that allowing the plea could lead to similar challenges in other elections.
Sibal, however, pressed for an inquiry into the alleged technical issues.
“Can the ECI not do its duty as directed by the Supreme Court and then come here and say this? It is shocking...one ballot paper did not even have my name. Whether the court gives me a remedy or not is another matter. But this needs to be investigated.”
Court’s Decision
After hearing the submissions, the Madras High Court said it would consider the maintainability of Stalin’s petition and pass orders.
The Court therefore did not decide the allegations concerning the EVMs, VVPAT verification or the Kolathur election result at this stage.
