Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Against CM's Secretary Over Alleged Violation Of Model Code Of Conduct, Cites Lack Of Evidence

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea, noting that the allegations raised by the petitioner were vague and not supported by any materials. The court remarked that it could not delve into disputed questions of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the absence of any materials.

“In the case on hand, it is the specific case of the respondent authorities that the allegations levelled are vague and not supported by material. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot delve into such disputed questions of fact, solely based on pleadings unsubstantiated by evidence and it is not permissible for a court to arrive at a conclusion on a factual position merely on the basis of submissions made in the course of hearing,” the court said.

The court also noted that the petitioner, as an interim relief, had sought the transfer of the officer, which was not maintainable in a public interest litigation.

“In view of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, the present public interest litigation is not maintainable in so far as it seeks transfer of the third respondent as an interim measure,” the court said.

The petitioner, Advocate A Mohandoss, had approached the court seeking an investigation against Umanath, including a forensic examination of his telephone records, his communication with the district administration and police authorities. As an interim relief, Mohandoss had also sought the transfer of the officer.

Mohandoss had claimed that Umanath, who was exercising administrative influence, was communicating with the District Collectors and police authorities and interfering in the governance while the Model Code of Conduct for the 2026 assembly elections was in place. Mohandoss claimed that the IAS officer was compromising the neutrality of the electoral process. He also argued that though representations were submitted to the Election Commission of India seeking action against the officer, the authorities did not pay heed to the same, prompting him to approach the court.

The petitioner claimed that the officer was misusing his official machinery and administrative influence. It was submitted that as per Article 324, the Election Commission of India had control over the entire electoral process but had not taken any action till date.

Countering the arguments, the ECI submitted that the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the officer were vague and the allegations regarding misuse of official machinery was not supported by any documents. ECI also pointed out that the petitioner had sought an interim direction to transfer the officer which is against the settled position of law. The ECI also assured the court that action would be taken against any officer as and when such need arises.

After going through the materials, the court emphasised that appropriate pleadings were sine qua non for a writ petition. The court noted that petitions could be decided only based on affidavit evidence and not witness action.

In the present case, the court noted that no materials had been placed by the petitioner to substantiate his allegations of violation of model code of conduct by the officer. Further, the court also noted that a public interest litigation seeking transfer of an officer was not maintainable.

Thus, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrothra Senior Advocate for Mr.G.Aanandaraj

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan Standing Counsel

Case Title: A Mohandoss v. The Election Commission of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 177

Case No: WP No.13733 of 2026