Madras High Court’s Directive to the Election Commission
The Madras High Court has issued a directive to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide pivotal election documents pertaining to Udhayanidhi Stalin to an opposing candidate. This candidate intends to file an election petition challenging the results of the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni Assembly election. The case, titled Milany Vs. Election Commission of India, underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring fair electoral processes.
Judicial Bench’s Decision
Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan presided over the judgment, delivered on June 8. They emphasized that the ECI’s withholding of these documents infringes on the candidate’s right to timely contest the election outcome. The ECI had previously contended that such documents could only be released 45 days post-election results. The Court, however, refuted this stance, noting that such a delay would undermine the candidate’s ability to file an election petition within the statutory deadline.
Petitioner’s Request and Court’s Response
The petition was filed by P Milany, an independent candidate from the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni constituency, who opposed the election victory of Udhayanidhi Stalin, a candidate from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party. Milany requested certified copies of Stalin’s nomination paperwork, including Form 2B and Form 26, alongside other relevant documents such as the checklist accompanying the nomination and any rejected nominations.
Milany’s legal representative, Advocate J Vinoth, argued for the necessity of these documents to substantiate his election petition before the High Court. Despite ECI’s reliance on a 2024 circular that restricts document release until 45 days following election results, the Court upheld the urgency mandated by Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, which requires the filing of election petitions within 45 days.
Impact of the Court’s Judgment
Upon examining Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, the bench clarified that the restriction on document inspection only pertains to specific items like ballot papers and electoral rolls. Since Milany’s request did not encompass these restricted categories, the Court ordered the District Election Officer to provide the requested certified copies within two weeks.
More Read
Importantly, before the judgment was pronounced, the ECI had already emailed certain documents to Milany, including certified copies of Stalin’s accepted nomination papers and the affidavit in Form 26.
This case highlights the balance courts must maintain in upholding electoral transparency while adhering to statutory deadlines. The decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that electoral grievances are addressed promptly and equitably.
