Madras High Court dismisses election petition against Colachel MLA Tharahai Cuthbert

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the election of Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) Tharahai Cuthbert from the Colachel constituency of Tamil Nadu's Kanyakumari district [SM Anthony Muthu v. Tharahai Cuthbert].

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was dealing with an election petition filed by a rival candidate who believed he should have received more votes because of his work in the constituency.

The Court observed that it is ultimately the electorate that decides whom to vote for. The mere belief that a candidate's public service should have fetched him more votes cannot be a ground to doubt the counting process, it said.

"It may be true that he has done good work. But on the 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 petition was filed by SM Anthony Muthu, who contested the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election from Colachel as a Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation candidate.

The election was held on April 23, and the results were declared on May 4. Muthu finished seventh.

In his petition, Muthu sought a manual count of the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips from eight polling booths. He also urged the Court to declare Cuthbert’s election void.

Muthu said that he had earlier served as president of the Reethapuram Town Panchayat and enjoyed considerable goodwill among people in the areas covered by the eight booths.

He claimed that several people had told him that they had voted for him. He also contended that he had received substantially more votes in these areas during previous elections.

According to Muthu, a VVPAT recount would clear the suspicion surrounding the counting and could move him from seventh to fifth place.

The Court found that no material or circumstance had been pleaded to support his suspicion. Muthu's belief that his public work must have earned him more votes was merely his own perception, it added.

Muthu had further argued that Rule 56D of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 gave candidates a right to request the counting of VVPAT slips.

However, the Court noted that such an application must be made to the returning officer after the entries in the result sheet are announced during the counting process. The returning officer can then accept or reject the request after recording reasons. The Court found that Muthu had not filed any such application.

The Court concluded that the election petition lacked the foundational facts and material particulars required to disclose a complete cause of action. It, therefore, rejected the petition at the threshold.

Advocate PT Perumal represented Muthu.

Senior Advocate Narmadha Sampath appeared for Cuthbert.

Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan appeared for the Election Commission of India.

[Read Judgment]