Election Candidate Can't Seek Vote Recount Merely On Belief That Good Public Service Must Have Won Him More Votes: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has held that a person cannot seek a recount of votes merely on his belief that more people would vote for him for his good public service. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 394]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy rejected an election petition filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation candidate Anthony Muthu challenging the victory of Indian National Congress candidate Tharahai Cuthbert during the 2026 assembly elections.
The court noted that Anthony had not placed any material raising a suspicion about the correctness of the count, and no other material was pleaded except his perception. The court noted that Muthu believed he would have received more votes in the election, particularly in 8 booths, where he had done good public service. The court held that such suspicion alone cannot be the basis to challenge the counting of the vote.
“The petitioner believes that, because of the good work he has done, more people from the 8 booths have voted for him and have so represented to him. This is nothing but his own version and cannot form a reasonable basis for suspicion. 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 court said.
Anthony had filed the plea seeking to declare Tharahai's victory as void and to recount the votes in Booth Nos. 58 to 64, 66 with the aid of VVPAT manually. Anthony had argued that he had already served as the President of Reethapuram Town Panchayat and enjoyed the goodwill of the people in the area, more particularly those in the 8 booths. He thus alleged that a large number of people had cast their votes for him and if the same were considered, he would come in 5th place instead of 7th place.
He thus argued that only if the VVPAT is counted manually in the above 8 booths, the cloud of suspicion will clear. He also argued that he had given a request under Rule 56D of the Conduct of Election Rules on May 23, 2026, and the Additional Chief Electoral Officer had also directed the District Collector to take appropriate action.
On behalf of Tharahai, it was argued that there was no material to support the petitioner's suspicion and such apprehension could not form the basis for the prayer sought for in the plea. It was further argued that the election petition did not disclose a cause of action and was liable to be rejected.
The court noted that the petition was filed mainly on the belief that Anthony would have received more votes, which could not be the basis for challenging the vote.
With respect to the argument that the petitioner had a right under Rule 56D of the Conduct of Election Rules, the court noted that as per the Rule, after the counting of votes, the candidate, his election agent or his counting agent should apply in writing to the returning officer to count the printed paper slips. In the present case, the court noted that no such application was made after the counting of votes and only a belated representation was made.
Thus, finding no cause of action, the court rejected the election petition.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. T. Perumal
Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Narmadha Sampath, Ms. M. B. Ramya, Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan
Case Title: SM Anthony Muthu v Tharahai Cuthbert and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
Case No: ELP No 44 of 2026