The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by former Tamil Nadu chief minister and DMK president MK Stalin alleging irregularities during the post-election verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in the Kolathur Assembly constituency, holding that his plea was not maintainable. A Division Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that allegations capable of calling an election result into question must be raised through an election petition and could not be adjudicated through a writ petition. Stalin had lost the Kolathur seat to Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate VS Babu in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. Babu polled 82,997 votes against Stalin’s 74,202, winning by a margin of 8,795 votes.
Stalin alleged EVM lapses
Following the declaration of results on May 4, Stalin applied on May 7 for verification of 14 EVM sets, representing five per cent of the 286 sets deployed in Kolathur. The request was made under the post-election verification mechanism laid down by the Supreme Court.
However, the Election Commission began the verification only on July 29 and completed the process on August 5.
Stalin subsequently alleged several irregularities during the exercise, including VVPAT failures at polling stations 28 and 75, discrepancies involving address tags at another polling station and deficiencies in the chain of custody of election equipment.
He also alleged that at polling station 208, a Control Unit failed to detect a Ballot Unit bearing his name.
His petition sought 100 per cent counting of VVPAT slips and verification of all 286 EVMs used in the constituency. He also sought to have Babu’s election declared void and himself declared the elected candidate from Kolathur.
ECI opposed writ plea
The Election Commission opposed the petition, arguing that Article 329(b) of the Constitution barred an election from being challenged through ordinary court proceedings and that the remedy available to Stalin was an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The High Court agreed that Stalin’s relief went beyond seeking a fresh or more comprehensive verification and effectively challenged the election of the returned candidate.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Stalin, argued that the ECI’s delay in conducting the verification had created an unusual situation. Stalin had sought verification within days of the result, but the exercise was undertaken only after the 45-day limitation period for filing an election petition had expired.
The Bench, however, held that such circumstances could not enlarge the High Court’s writ jurisdiction when Article 329(b) expressly restricted judicial intervention in election disputes.
The court said questions relating to the delay and whether Stalin had any remedy despite expiry of the limitation period would have to be considered in appropriate election proceedings.
While dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable, the High Court left Stalin free to pursue remedies available to him under law.