Court Strikes Off Vague and Unsubstantiated Allegations of Irregularities in Nomination, Polling, Postal Ballots, Counting, and EVM/VVPAT, Upholding the Returned Candidate's Victory
In a significant judgment delivered on September 16, 2026, the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, dismissed an election petition filed by Arul Arumugam challenging the election of E.V. Velu as the Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from the Tiruvannamalai constituency. The petition sought to declare the election void on the grounds of alleged irregularities during various stages of the electoral process, including nomination scrutiny, polling day, postal ballot counting, counting day procedures, and Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) irregularities.
The returned candidate, E.V. Velu of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), had defeated Arul Arumugam of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) by a narrow margin of 2,455 votes in the election held on April 23, 2026. The petitioner raised multiple allegations asserting that irregularities materially affected the election outcome.
Upon hearing, the Court examined two applications filed by the returned candidate: one seeking to strike off paragraphs containing vague, unnecessary, and scandalous allegations from the election petition, and another for rejection of the petition itself for failing to disclose any cause of action.
The Court, after a meticulous review, observed that the election petition suffered from a lack of concise material facts as mandated under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The pleadings were found to be vague and incomplete, failing to provide essential particulars such as dates, identities of officials involved, specific documents, or concrete evidence supporting the claims. For instance, alleged discrepancies regarding the returned candidate's age and non-disclosure of criminal cases were not substantiated with precise details or relevant official records.
The petition also failed to comply with the stringent requirements under Section 123 of the Act concerning allegations of corrupt practices, including the absence of a mandatory affidavit verifying such claims. Allegations regarding polling station irregularities, exclusion of agents, and counting day violations, including unauthorized mobile phone usage, lacked clear material facts establishing how these affected the election results.
Notably, the Court referenced several Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the high threshold for entertaining election petitions. It reiterated that pleadings must disclose a triable cause of action with specific, material facts rather than vague or general assertions. The Court underscored that the election petition is not a tool for a roving enquiry or to harass the returned candidate with unsubstantiated claims.
Regarding the alleged rejection of a large number of postal ballots, the Court found that even if all rejected ballots were considered valid votes for the petitioner, the margin of victory was still sufficient to negate any material effect on the election outcome.
Consequently, the Court allowed the application to strike off the offending paragraphs and rejected the election petition for failing to disclose any triable issue. The judgment ensures that the returned candidate's election stands upheld and protects the democratic process from frivolous and vexatious litigation.
The Court ordered the refund of the security deposit to the petitioner and imposed no cost orders on either party, emphasizing the importance of maintaining fair electoral contestation within the bounds of law.
This ruling highlights the judiciary's firm stance on maintaining electoral integrity by demanding strict compliance with procedural and substantive legal requirements when challenging election results.
Bottom Line:
Election Petition - Allegations of irregularities in nomination scrutiny, polling day, postal ballots, counting day, and EVM/VVPAT irregularities - Striking off pleadings due to lack of material facts and vague allegations - Application for rejection of election petition allowed as no triable issue disclosed.
Statutory provision(s):
Representation of the People Act, 1951 Sections 83, 100(1)(d), 101, 123, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VI Rule 16, Order VII Rule 11
E.V.Velu v. Arul Arumugam, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2980702
