Madras High Court asks ECI to give Udhayanidhi Stalin's election papers to rival candidate for filing election petition

The Madras High Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to furnish election papers of former Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin to an unsuccessful candidate who plans to challenge the result of the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni Assembly election [Milany Vs Election Commission of India].

In a judgment delivered on June 8, a bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan held that the ECI cannot withhold these documents and defeat the candidate's right to file the election petition.

ECI had argued that the documents can be supplied only after 45 days from declaration of results.

However, the Court said:

“If the Election Commission of India were to retain all the documents till the period is over and thereafter they furnish them to the petitioner, then, his right to move the Court would in itself be rendered negatory."

The Court was hearing a petition filed by P Milany who contested the recently concluded Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election from the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni constituency as an independent candidate.

Stalin, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam candidate, secured the maximum votes and was declared the winner.

With an intention to challenge Stalin's win, Milany sought certified copies of his accepted nomination paper in Form 2B, his affidavit in Form 26 and the checklist of documents filed with his nomination.

He also sought copies of rejected nomination papers and affidavits filed by Stalin, if any.

Apart from this, Milany sought orders rejecting 15 nominations during scrutiny, objections received by the Returning Officer, decisions accepting nominations despite objections, Form 7A containing the list of contesting candidates and relevant extracts from the Handbook for Returning Officers.

Milany told the authorities that he requires the documents to file an election petition before the High Court. He had first sought certain records even before the election and later made representations on May 15 and May 20 after the results were declared.

In response, ECI's Standing Counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan relied on a 2024 circular to argue that election records would be issued only after 45 days from declaration of results and on payment of the prescribed fee. Since the 45-day period had not expired, he argued that the petitioner had no cause of action.

However, the Court noted that an election petition is required be filed within 45 days under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, and any delay cannot be condoned.

It added that election petitions are required to strictly comply with Section 83 failing which they may be rejected at the threshold.

After examining Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, the Bench said the bar on inspection applies only to limited documents such as ballot papers, counterfoils and marked electoral rolls.

Since the documents Milany sought were outside this category, the Court directed the District Election Officer to furnish certified copies within two weeks.

Pertinently, just before the pronouncement of the verdict on June 8, the ECI informed the Court that certified copy of Stalin's accepted nomination papers, certified copy of the rejected nomination papers, certified copies of Form 7A-List of contesting candidates and affidavit in Form 26 (English version) were provided to the petitioner by email on June 6.

The petitioner was represented by advocate J Vinoth.

[Read Judgment]