Madras High Court Decision on EVM Verification Plea
In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court has dismissed the petition filed by MK Stalin, the leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Stalin’s petition alleged irregularities during the verification process of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) in the Kolathur Assembly constituency following the recent Tamil Nadu elections. This case is formally cited as MK Stalin v. Election Commission of India.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, concluded that Stalin’s plea was not maintainable. A comprehensive judgment is anticipated to be released shortly.
Background of the Election and Legal Challenge
The Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) emerged victorious in the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, establishing a majority government. In the Kolathur constituency, Stalin was defeated by TVK candidate VS Babu, placing second in the race. Stalin called for a verification of 14 EVMs, representing 5% of the total 286 EVMs deployed in the constituency, following the Supreme Court’s guidance in the Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India case.
Although the election results were announced on May 4, 2026, and Stalin requested the verification on May 7, the process only began on July 29. Stalin subsequently approached the High Court, challenging alleged anomalies in the EVMs used during the election.
Legal Arguments and Court’s Rationale
The Election Commission of India (ECI) countered Stalin’s petition by citing Article 329(b) of the Indian Constitution, which precludes courts from hearing election-related challenges except through a formal election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The ECI argued that Stalin’s application essentially sought to dispute the election results via a writ petition, which is constitutionally impermissible.
More Read
The ECI’s counsel emphasized that the statutory framework provides for an election petition as the sole legitimate avenue for contesting election outcomes. Therefore, utilizing Article 226 for such challenges was deemed as “artful drafting” to circumvent established legal processes.
Moreover, the reliefs sought by Stalin included declarations that would invalidate Babu’s election and establish Stalin as the elected candidate. These demands underscored the election-centric nature of the petition.
Stalin’s Defense and Legal Representation
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Stalin, opposed the ECI’s objections, highlighting a critical timing issue. Sibal argued that the EVM verification process conducted by the ECI occurred after the 45-day deadline for filing an election petition had expired. Alleged defects in the EVMs, including VVPAT failures and discrepancies in polling station records, only surfaced during the delayed verification, leaving Stalin unable to file a timely election petition.
More Read
Sibal contended that the verification was a separate mechanism established following the Supreme Court’s directives, distinct from the traditional election dispute resolution methods under the Representation of the People Act.
Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari also represented Stalin, while the ECI’s defense was led by Senior Advocates Dama Seshadri Naidu and G Rajagopalan.
