Kolathur election: Madras High Court dismisses MK Stalin’s plea challenging VS Babu’s victory

CHENNAI: Former chief minister and DMK president MK Stalin’s plea challenging TVK’s VS Babu’s victory in the Kolathur Assembly constituency was not maintainable, as such a challenge must be made through an election petition, said the Madras High Court on Thursday (September 3).

Stalin had approached the court seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to conduct 100 per cent counting of VVPAT slips and verify all 286 EVMs used in the constituency.

Of the 14 EVMs taken up for verification, two stopped working immediately, which, he argued, required technical diagnosis.

He also pointed out lapses in the chain of custody of another EVM. Despite these lapses, the District Election Officer declared that the verification process had been completed successfully and in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

The division bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that Stalin’s plea went beyond seeking verification and directly challenged the victory of the returned candidate.

The court said his prayer to declare Babu’s election void and himself the duly elected candidate from Kolathur amounted to a challenge to the election itself and was barred under Article 329(b) of the Constitution.

The court agreed with the Election Commission of India (ECI) that entertaining such petitions would open a “Pandora’s box”. It held that allowing writ petitions based on such anomalies to unseat elected candidates would render the statutory election petition process meaningless and defeat the purpose of Article 329(b).

The court said that if every such anomaly were made a basis to unseat the returned candidate and declare the second- or third-placed candidate elected, the statutory scheme of election petitions would become wholly illusory.

Every defeated candidate would have an alternative to an election petition, and the finality of elections sought to be secured under Article 329(b) would be lost.

The court noted Stalin’s submission that the verification process was conducted after the 45-day period for filing an election petition had expired.

However, it held that this could not enlarge the court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 when Article 329(b) expressly barred such a challenge.

The court said the extent of the delay, its impact on limitation and any remedy available to Stalin were matters to be considered by the Election Tribunal through an election petition.

The court said that even if there was a genuine difficulty, it could only be raised before the tribunal.

Though it dismissed the plea as not maintainable, the court left it open to Stalin to approach the court through an election petition.