The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filed by DMK leader M.K. Stalin seeking to be declared the winner of the Kolathur Assembly constituency. The court said that disputes over election results must be raised through an election petition and not through a writ petition.
The case was related to the Kolathur Assembly election, where Stalin had sought verification of voting records after losing the seat to TVK MLA V.S. Babu. Stalin had asked for 100% verification of VVPAT slips to check the accuracy of the election results.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) opposed Stalin’s request. The commission argued that candidates cannot use writ petitions to directly challenge election results. According to the ECI, allowing such petitions could encourage many candidates to approach courts in a similar manner, creating a large number of election-related cases.
Stalin argued that he was unable to file an election petition within the required time because the ECI had delayed the verification of 5% of the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) used in Kolathur.
According to his petition, Stalin had requested the verification within three days of the election results, referring to a Supreme Court ruling that allowed candidates to seek such verification within the specified period.
However, the verification process did not begin immediately. It finally started on July 29, 2026, and was completed on August 5, 2026. Stalin claimed that the verification process found problems with some of the voting machines.
Based on these developments, Stalin asked the court to consider his concerns and allow further verification of the VVPAT slips. He also argued that the delay in the verification process affected his ability to take the matter forward through the normal election petition process.
The ECI, however, maintained that the proper legal procedure must be followed when challenging an election result. It argued that the court should not allow a writ petition to be used as an alternative to an election petition.
The Madras High Court accepted the ECI’s argument and dismissed Stalin’s request. The court maintained that election disputes must be dealt with through the legal process specifically provided for such cases.
Lawyers representing V.S. Babu also opposed Stalin’s plea during the hearing. They argued against granting the relief sought by Stalin and supported the position that the election result should be challenged only through the appropriate legal procedure.
The court’s decision means that Stalin’s attempt to challenge the Kolathur election result through a writ petition has not succeeded. The issue also highlights the importance of following the prescribed legal procedure when candidates raise questions about election results and voting machines.