The Madras High Court has reserved orders on the question of maintainability of a petition filed by former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK leader MK Stalin challenging the election victory of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam candidate VS Babu from the Kolathur Assembly constituency. The petition concerns allegations relating to failures in Electronic Voting Machines, deficiencies in the verification process of the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail machines and alleged lapses in maintaining the chain of custody of certain election equipment. Stalin has sought directions for complete counting of VVPAT slips in the constituency, verification of all 286 EVMs deployed for the election, recounting of votes and a declaration that VS Babu's election victory is void. The Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan heard arguments concerning whether such relief could be considered through the present writ petition or whether the challenge was required to be pursued through an election petition.
The proceedings arise from the election conducted in the Kolathur constituency. Stalin challenged the result after VS Babu was declared elected. His petition seeks judicial intervention concerning the functioning and verification of the EVMs and VVPAT units used in the constituency. The principal request before the Court is for 100 per cent counting of the VVPAT slips and checking and verification of all 286 machines deployed during the election. Stalin has also challenged the District Election Officer's decision concerning the verification of certain EVMs and has sought a recount of the votes.
According to Stalin's submissions, immediately after the election results were declared, he submitted an application along with the prescribed fee seeking examination and verification of the burnt memory and microcontroller of 14 EVMs. The purpose of the requested verification was to determine whether there had been any tampering or modification of the machines. Stalin stated that although the application was submitted at the beginning of May, the actual checking and verification of the machines took place only much later. According to his case, the verification was conducted after a delay of 45 days.
Stalin further submitted that two of the 14 EVMs stopped functioning immediately after they were taken up for checking. According to him, the failure of the machines required a technical diagnosis. He contended that the technical failure could not simply be treated as an ordinary event during verification and that the circumstances surrounding the failure required examination. The alleged failure of the machines formed one of the principal grounds on which Stalin questioned the verification process and the subsequent decision of the District Election Officer.
Another issue raised by Stalin concerned the chain of custody and identification of election equipment. He submitted that, in relation to another EVM, the address tags attached to the carrying cases of the Ballot Units and Control Units were blank and had not been properly filled in. He also pointed to the placement of seals on the reverse side of the relevant units and referred to other alleged procedural deficiencies. According to Stalin, these circumstances raised questions concerning whether the prescribed procedures for custody and identification of the election equipment had been properly followed.
Despite these alleged deficiencies, Stalin submitted that the District Election Officer had declared that the checking and verification process had been successfully completed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Stalin challenged that conclusion before the High Court. According to his submissions, the alleged violations concerning the custody and identification of the EVM units had not been properly addressed, while the verification process had nevertheless been described as successful.
Stalin argued that the District Election Officer's order was contrary to law, arbitrary and had been passed mechanically without proper application of mind. He submitted that there had been no adequate inquiry or investigation into the technical failure of the EVMs. According to him, the order did not properly acknowledge or address the technical problems that arose during the verification process. He therefore sought to have the District Election Officer's order set aside.
A further issue raised by Stalin concerned one of the Control Units, which, according to his submission, failed to detect a Ballot Unit bearing his name. He argued that this raised questions about whether similar problems could have existed with other Control Units and Ballot Units used in the constituency. He questioned how many other Control Units may have failed to detect Ballot Units and whether any votes could consequently have remained uncounted. He relied on this alleged failure while seeking a broader examination of the machines and a complete VVPAT count.
Stalin submitted that the alleged technical and procedural failures affected the fairness of the electoral process and the purpose for which VVPAT technology had been introduced. On this basis, he sought directions for 100 per cent counting of the VVPAT slips from the constituency. He also sought verification of all 286 machines deployed in Kolathur and a recount of the votes. His petition additionally seeks a declaration that the victory of VS Babu should be treated as void.
During the hearing, the Bench raised a preliminary question concerning the proper legal remedy available to Stalin. The Court asked why he had not filed an election petition challenging the victory of the returned candidate. The question arose because a challenge to an election result ordinarily has a specific statutory mechanism. The Court therefore sought clarification on why the present writ petition had been filed instead of an election petition.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Stalin, responded that the circumstances prevented Stalin from pursuing an election petition within the applicable period. Sibal submitted that the Election Commission conducted the verification of the EVMs only after the expiry of 45 days from the declaration of the election results. According to him, the delay in verification meant that Stalin could not effectively file an election petition within the prescribed period because the material concerning the EVM verification became available only after that period had elapsed.
Sibal argued that the petitioner could not be left without a remedy merely because the relevant verification was conducted after the period for filing an election petition had expired. He submitted that Stalin had acted promptly by approaching the Election Commission and seeking verification of the machines. According to him, the delay occurred on the side of the authorities responsible for conducting the verification and should not deprive the petitioner of the opportunity to challenge the alleged irregularities.
Sibal also explained before the Bench his understanding of the process through which votes are registered and transmitted between the Ballot Unit, Control Unit and VVPAT. He submitted that when a voter presses the button on the Ballot Unit, a signal is sent to the Control Unit, which then sends a signal to the VVPAT. He argued that, in the present case, the VVPAT was placed between the relevant components and that the signal was sent to software that, according to his submission, could potentially be manipulated. These submissions were made while explaining the technical concerns raised in the petition.
The Election Commission opposed Stalin's petition. Senior Advocate Dama Sheshadri Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission, argued that the petitioner was effectively seeking a remedy that was available only through an election petition. According to the Election Commission, the relief sought in the writ petition could not be obtained merely by describing the challenge differently. It was argued that the petition sought to challenge the election result through what the Commission characterised as clever drafting.
The Election Commission further argued that if Stalin had doubts about the EVMs, he should have challenged the issue at the appropriate stage. Naidu submitted that the petitioner could not wait and subsequently approach the Court after the relevant period had passed. According to the Commission, the petitioner had effectively slept over his rights and could not seek an alternative remedy after the statutory period for an election challenge had elapsed.
The Election Commission also opposed the request for 100 per cent VVPAT counting. It relied upon the Supreme Court's position concerning complete recounting and argued that allowing such a request in the present case would have wider consequences. Naidu submitted that permitting the plea would open the possibility of similar petitions being filed by other candidates and parties whenever they expressed doubts concerning election machines or results.
The Bench also questioned Sibal about why Stalin had not approached the Election Commission earlier. In response, Sibal submitted that a letter had been sent to the Election Commission within seven days of the declaration of the results. According to him, this was done in accordance with directions contained in earlier Supreme Court decisions. He submitted that after receiving the letter, it was for the Election Commission to undertake verification of the machines.
Sibal argued that the Election Commission ultimately conducted the verification only after 45 days. According to his submission, this delay prevented Stalin from pursuing an election petition within the relevant period. He therefore argued that the consequences of the delay by the Election Commission could not be imposed upon the petitioner by denying him a judicial remedy. The alleged technical irregularities discovered during the eventual verification, according to Sibal, further demonstrated why the matter required investigation.
During the hearing, Sibal emphasised the alleged failure involving the Ballot Unit bearing Stalin's name. He submitted that the failure raised questions that required investigation regardless of whether the Court ultimately granted the relief sought in the petition. He argued that the alleged failure of the equipment and the procedural lapses could not simply be ignored without examination.
The central preliminary issue before the High Court was therefore whether the writ petition was maintainable. Stalin sought to challenge the election-related process and result through the High Court while the Election Commission argued that the proper route was an election petition. The Court heard arguments from both sides concerning the statutory remedy, the timing of the EVM verification and the consequences of the alleged delay.
The petitioner's case is that he had taken steps shortly after the election results and had requested verification within the period contemplated by the applicable procedure. His contention is that the Election Commission's delayed verification deprived him of the opportunity to pursue an election petition in time. The Election Commission, on the other hand, maintains that the petitioner cannot use the writ jurisdiction to obtain a remedy that properly belongs to an election petition.
The technical issues raised by Stalin include the failure of two EVMs during the verification process, alleged deficiencies in the address tags and seals of certain machines, and the alleged inability of one Control Unit to detect a Ballot Unit bearing his name. Stalin has relied upon these circumstances in seeking verification of all 286 machines and complete counting of the VVPAT slips. The Election Commission disputes the legal basis for granting such relief through the present proceedings.
The Bench heard the arguments of both sides and did not decide at this stage whether the alleged EVM failures or VVPAT-related issues ultimately justify recounting or declaring the election result void. Instead, after hearing the parties, the Court stated that it would consider the maintainability of the petition and pass orders on that issue. The matter therefore remained pending for the Court's decision on whether the writ petition can be entertained in its present form.
The case is titled MK Stalin v. Election Commission of India and Others and is registered as W.P. No. 34892 of 2026. The matter was heard by Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan. Stalin's challenge concerns the Kolathur constituency election, the verification of EVMs and VVPATs used there, the alleged procedural and technical lapses identified during verification, and the reliefs of complete VVPAT counting, machine verification, recounting and setting aside the returned candidate's victory.
The High Court has therefore reserved its consideration on the maintainability question after hearing the competing submissions. Stalin maintains that the delayed verification of the EVMs left him without an effective election-petition remedy and that the alleged technical failures and procedural lapses require investigation. The Election Commission maintains that the challenge is essentially an election dispute for which the statutory election-petition remedy is the appropriate course and opposes the request for 100 per cent VVPAT counting. The Court will decide the maintainability issue before determining any further course in the proceedings.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.