Kolathur Election Result: Madras HC Rejects MK Stalin’s Writ Plea
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed as not maintainable a writ petition filed by former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK president MK Stalin challenging the result of the 2026 Assembly election from Kolathur.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that a defeated candidate cannot bypass the constitutionally prescribed election-dispute mechanism by presenting an election challenge as a writ petition under Article 226.
Stalin, who had represented Kolathur for 15 years, lost the constituency to Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam candidate VS Babu. Through his writ petition, Stalin sought 100 per cent counting of VVPAT slips, verification of all 286 machines deployed in the constituency, preservation of CCTV footage and connected records, annulment of Babu’s election and a declaration that Stalin himself had been duly elected.
He alleged irregularities in the post-result checking and verification process. According to him, he had applied on May 7 for examination of the burnt memory and microcontrollers of 14 EVMs. The verification was allegedly undertaken only on July 29. Stalin claimed that some machines failed during verification and that defects were noticed in address tags, sealing and chain-of-custody documentation.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the Election Commission’s delay had pushed the verification exercise beyond the 45-day period prescribed for filing an election petition, leaving Stalin without an effective remedy.
The Court, however, examined the substance of the reliefs rather than their drafting. It found that Stalin did not merely seek a more thorough technical verification. He expressly wanted the returned candidate’s election declared void and himself declared elected. Such prayers, the Bench held, went to the very root of the electoral result.
Article 329(b) of the Constitution stipulates that an election may be questioned only through an election petition presented in the manner prescribed by law. Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act similarly preserves the election petition as the specialised remedy for challenging an election.
The Court warned that accepting Stalin’s route would allow every candidate placed second or third to use alleged verification anomalies to avoid the safeguards governing election petitions. Limitation, verified pleadings, security for costs and the returned candidate’s right of recrimination would become meaningless. The constitutional finality attached to the formation of legislative bodies would consequently be lost.
The Bench also clarified that the Supreme Court-created mechanism for post-result verification of EVM components is an additional safeguard intended to strengthen public confidence. It does not replace an election petition. Material collected during verification may support an election case, but cannot create an independent route to unseat an elected representative through writ jurisdiction.
The judgment does not decide whether Stalin’s technical allegations are correct. It makes clear only that, regardless of political stature, every defeated candidate must follow the same constitutional procedure for challenging an election.
In a Loktantra, the people’s mandate can certainly be questioned—but only through the legal path created to protect both electoral integrity and institutional stability.
Case: MK Stalin v Election Commission of India and Others, WP No.34892 of 2026, 2026:MHC:3609, decided on September 3, 2026.
