Madras High Court dismisses MK Stalin’s plea alleging irregularities in EVM verification

The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) president and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin over alleged irregularities during the post-election verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) used in the Kolathur Assembly constituency [MK Stalin v. Election Commission of India].

A Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the plea by Stalin is not maintainable.

A detailed copy of the order is awaited.

The Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) recently swept the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections and formed the State government.

In the Kolathur constituency, Stalin was defeated by TVK's VS Babu. Stalin finished second in the race.

He later sought a verification of 14 EVM sets - representing 5 per cent of the 286 EVMs in the constituency - under a mechanism laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India.

The election result was declared on May 4, 2026 and Stalin applied for the verification on May 7, within the period stipulated by the Supreme Court. However, the verification process began only on July 29.

He eventually filed a petition before the High Court questioning alleged irregularities in the EVMs in Kolathur.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) raised a preliminary objection to the petition, arguing that Article 329(b) of the Constitution bars courts from entertaining a challenge to an election except through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The ECI said that Stalin's petition was, in substance, an attempt to call the election into question through a writ petition. Its counsel relied on Article 329(b) as well as Sections 80 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act.

The Commission submitted that the statutory scheme provides an election petition as the remedy for challenging an election. Article 226 could not be used to bypass that mechanism through what counsel described as “artful drafting."

It also pointed to the nature of the reliefs sought by Stalin. Apart from challenging the verification process, his petition sought a declaration that Babu's (TVK candidate) election from Kolathur is void and a consequential declaration that Stalin be treated as the returned candidate.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Stalin, opposed the ECI's objection. He pointed out that the deadline for filing an election petition expired before the ECI carried the EVM verification exercise that Stalin had sought in May.

Sibal argued that the alleged defects in the EVMs came to light only after the ECI carried out the verification exercise, which was done after the 45-day limitation period for filing an election petition had expired.

“While I file the application within five days, we open the machines after 45 days. So how could I file an election petition?” Sibal asked.

Sibal maintained that the EVM verification exercise was a distinct post-result mechanism created pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions and was not part of the ordinary election dispute mechanism under the Representation of the People Act.

Sibal also referred to the alleged defects discovered during verification. These included VVPAT failures at polling stations 28 and 75, discrepancies concerning address tags at polling station 79 and alleged chain-of-custody defects at polling station 157.

He particularly highlighted polling station 208, where Stalin alleged that the Control Unit failed to detect a Ballot Unit bearing his name.

Stalin was also represented by Senior Advocates Amit Anand Tiwari and J Ravindran. The seniors were instructed by Advocates Aruna Elango and Agilash Kumar.

ECI was represented by Senior Advocates DS Naidu and G Rajagopalan instructed by Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan.

VS Babu was represented by Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, instructed by Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal and Yash S Vijay.