Court holds that instructions issued by Election Commission have statutory force; material effect on election to be determined only after trial
In a significant ruling dated October 29, 2026, the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, dismissed an application seeking the outright rejection of an election petition filed in E.P. No. 28 of 2026. The petition was filed by Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi challenging the election of Vijayakumar (A) Navalpattu S. Viji. The applicant, who is the returned candidate, contended that the election petition failed to specifically aver how the alleged grounds materially affected the election outcome and argued for dismissal without trial.
The Court carefully examined the submissions from both sides. The applicant's counsel, Mr. Antony R Julian, relied on precedent including the Supreme Court's judgment in Vashist Narain Sharma vs. Dev Chandra (1954) 2 SCC 32, which held that an election petition must demonstrate a material effect on the election result to proceed. He also cited a Karnataka High Court judgment Bashiruddin Halhipparga vs. Rajasehkhar Basavaraj Patil (2004 SCC Online Kar 332) to argue that mere violation of Election Commission instructions, which do not explicitly prescribe consequences for violations, cannot void an election.
Opposing this, the respondent's counsel, Mr. Richardson Wilson, invoked recent Supreme Court rulings such as S. Subramaniam Balaji vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 9 SCC 659 and Arikala Narasa Reddy vs. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari (2014) 5 SCC 312 to argue that instructions issued by the Election Commission under its constitutional mandate (Article 324) have statutory force and are binding on candidates. Consequently, any violation of such instructions could materially affect the election and must be examined through trial.
Justice Kumaresh Babu observed that the precedents relied upon by the applicant pertained to judgments rendered after full trial and evidence evaluation, which is distinct from a pre-trial dismissal. He emphasized that the material effect on the election result can only be adjudicated after the grounds raised in the election petition are substantiated through evidence in trial proceedings.
A notable ground in the petition involves the alleged violation of instructions prohibiting the engagement of children during election campaigns. The Court held that these instructions, issued under statutory powers, carry binding force and their violation, if proven, may materially impact the election.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application to reject the election petition, ordering the returned candidate to file a reply within four weeks and directing both parties to submit their witness lists within two weeks thereafter. The trial will proceed to determine the veracity of the allegations and their impact on the election outcome.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's approach to election disputes, balancing procedural safeguards with the need to thoroughly investigate alleged electoral violations before arriving at conclusions on the validity of elections.
Bottom Line:
Election Petition - Rejection application - Allegations must be substantiated during trial to determine if the election was materially affected by the alleged violations. Instructions issued by the Election Commission under statutory powers are binding and have statutory force.
Statutory provision(s):
Representation of the People Act, 1951; Constitution of India, Article 324
Vijayakumar (A) Navalpattu S.Viji v. Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3017445
