Madras High Court Upholds Election of Colachel MLA
The Madras High Court has dismissed a legal challenge against the election of Tharahai Cuthbert, the current Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the Colachel constituency in Tamil Nadu’s Kanyakumari district. The case, SM Anthony Muthu v. Tharahai Cuthbert, was presided over by Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy.
Details of the Election Petition
The petition was filed by SM Anthony Muthu, who had contested the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election from Colachel under the banner of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation. Muthu, who finished seventh in the elections held on April 23, with results announced on May 4, claimed that his public service entitled him to more votes than he received.
Muthu sought a manual recount of the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips from eight polling stations. He also requested the Court to declare the election of Cuthbert as void, asserting that his work as the former president of the Reethapuram Town Panchayat had earned him considerable support in the area.
Court’s Rationale and Observations
The Court, however, observed that election outcomes are ultimately determined by the electorate’s choice. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked, “It may be true that he has done good work. But on polling day, it is the electorate that decides whom to vote for. In a democracy, every person who does good public service can expect people to vote for him. But to impugn the count, this belief alone is not enough.”
The Court noted that Muthu’s suspicion regarding the vote count lacked material evidence or substantial circumstances to support it. His perception that his public service should have resulted in a higher vote count was deemed subjective and insufficient for a legal challenge.
More Read
Legal Grounds and Rule 56D of Election Rules
Muthu also contended that under Rule 56D of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, candidates have the right to request a VVPAT recount. However, the Court clarified that such requests must be made to the returning officer immediately after the result entries are announced during the counting process. The returning officer is then responsible for accepting or denying the request, providing reasons for the decision. The Court found that Muthu had not made any such application at the appropriate time.
Conclusion and Representation
The Court concluded that the petition lacked the necessary foundational facts and material particulars to present a complete cause of action. Consequently, the petition was dismissed at the initial stage. Advocate PT Perumal represented Muthu, while Senior Advocate Narmadha Sampath appeared on behalf of Cuthbert. Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan represented the Election Commission of India.
For those interested, the full judgment is available for review.
