The Madras High Court recently granted relief to an Australian citizen holding an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card who found himself embroiled in a criminal case after traces of ink on his index finger led to suspicions that he had illegally voted in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections [Chandirasekar Vs State].

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan quashed the First Information Report (FIR) against one Chandirasekar, on finding that there was no material to show that he had cast the vote attributed to him in Chennai’s Virugambakkam Assembly constituency.

The Court held that the authorities had “mechanically presumed” that Chandirasekar and another voter with a similar name were the same person.

“It is also seen that the second respondent (Assistant Foreigners Regional Registration Officer) mechanically presumed that the name of Chandrasekaran Ragupathi, i.e., the person who cast his vote in the 22-Virugampakkam Assembly Constituency, and the name of the petitioner, i.e., Chandirasekhar Ragupathy, are one and the same," the Court said.

The petitioner, Chandirasekar, was an Australian citizen holding an Australian passport and an OCI card. His parents are Indian citizens. He had arrived in India on March 17 this year and was scheduled to leave for Australia on May 13.

However, while he was on his way to board the flight back to Australia, immigration officials at Chennai International Airport noticed traces of indelible ink on his left index finger.

This led the officials to suspect that he had voted in the Tamil Nadu elections. As an Australian citizen, he is not permitted to vote in India merely because he possesses an OCI card.

An FIR was subsequently registered against him for offences of cheating, impersonation and forgery under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the offence of making or furnishing false statements under the Representation of the People Act.

The prosecution alleged that he had voted at the Avichi Higher Secondary School in Saligramam, which falls within the Virugambakkam Assembly constituency.

However, the petitioner maintained that on April 23, the date of the alleged vote, he was at his sister’s residence in Tiruchirappalli and had CCTV footage to support his claim.

The High Court agreed that there were discrepancies in the prosecution's case. While Chandirasekar possessed a voter ID card relating to the Erode constituency, he was accused of having voted in Virugambakkam.

“If the petitioner possessed a Voter ID card for the Erode Constituency, he could not have voted in the 22-Virugampakkam Assembly Constituency," it noted.

The police had sought CCTV footage from the Chennai polling station where the alleged vote was cast, but that request remained pending.

The Court concluded that there was no material on record to support the claim that the petitioner had illegally cast a vote by impersonating someone else or on the strength of false declarations.

"Further only on the statement recorded from the petitioner, the second respondent lodged complaint ... There is no material to show that he cast his vote at 22-Virugampakkam assembly constituency," it held.

Holding that no purpose would be served by continuing the investigation, the Court quashed the FIR.

The petitioner was represented by advocate Vikram Veerasamy

Government Advocate M Dinesh appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]