Madras High Court Upholds Election Victories of Tamil Nadu Ministers
The Madras High Court has dismissed election petitions contesting the 2026 Assembly election outcomes for KA Sengottaiyan, a leader of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) and a minister in Tamil Nadu, and EV Velu of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). These rulings affirm the victories of Sengottaiyan in Gobichettipalayam and Velu in Tiruvannamalai.
Court Ruling on KA Sengottaiyan’s Election
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan delivered the decision on September 15, rejecting the challenge against Sengottaiyan. The petitioner argued that the notary public, who authenticated Sengottaiyan’s Form 26 election affidavit, did not possess a valid practice certificate at the time of attestation. However, the court held that even if the allegation were true, the petitioner failed to demonstrate how this defect materially impacted the election outcome.
Justice Ilanthiraiyan stated, “Mere allegation of non-compliance, without a specific averment, would not by itself constitute a complete cause of action for declaring the election void.” Consequently, the court found that the petition did not present a comprehensive cause of action and dismissed it under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Advocate IS Inbadurai represented the election petitioner, VB Prabhu, while KA Sengottaiyan was represented by Advocates C Munusamy and LP Shanmugasundaram. Other parties involved included Advocates AS Ashwin Prasanna and VPK Gowtham, with Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan appearing for the Returning Officer.
EV Velu’s Election Petition Dismissed
The challenge to EV Velu’s election from Tiruvannamalai was brought forth by TVK candidate Arul Arumugam. Velu, who won by a margin of 2,455 votes, moved to dismiss the petition, contending that its claims regarding nomination scrutiny, polling agents, postal ballots, vote counting, and EVM/VVPAT discrepancies lacked specific material facts as mandated by the Representation of the People Act.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy, who presided over Velu’s case, noted that the allegations concerning electronic voting machines (EVMs) and voter-verifiable paper audit trails (VVPATs) failed to specify the machines allegedly tampered with or the precise statutory violations involved. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Velu, concluding the challenge to his election.
Senior Advocate P Wilson, with assistance from Advocate Richardson Wilson, represented EV Velu in the proceedings.
