Madras High Court Seeks ECI's Response On Plea By Manithaneya Makkal Katchi Challenging Party's Delisting

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan directed ECI to file its counter within 4 weeks.

The party had approached the court challenging the order passed by the ECI Secretary on August 11, 2025, wherein 474 registered unrecognised political parties across India were delisted. The party argued that it has been actively involved in raising voices for public issues and has frequently participated in all elections from 2009 to 2022.

In its plea, the party provided the details of the elections contested by it and also stated that it had periodically filed the annual audit report and contribution report with the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, from 2016 to 2024.

The party submitted that on August 12, 2025, the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, served a show cause notice to the party for delisting the registered political party not contesting in the Election for 6 years since 2019. It was submitted that though a hearing was fixed on August 26, 2025, no hearing was conducted even though the party president appeared before the Chief Electoral Officer.

The party stated that, though it sent a reply to the show cause notice, shockingly, the ECI passed the order delisting the party, stating that it had not contested any election for the past 6 years.

The party stated that the ECI had passed the order without proper application of mind and without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. It was argued that the statutory provision under Section 29(A) of the Act does not confer any right to the ECI to delist a party but only lists out the conditions for registration. It has been stated that the conditions specified under the Act cannot be supplanted or modified by guidelines issued by the ECI.

The party further stated that the Guidelines for Registration of Political Parties, on which the ECI relied to pass the order, were not in existence when the party was registered and thus, it cannot be applied retrospectively.

The party also argued that the order, passed by the ECI Secretary was not sustainable, as it was passed without the prior approval from the Commission and the same would be violative of Rules 17 & 18 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.

Thus, the party sought to quash the order and to restore its registration within a time frame fixed by the court.

Case Title: Manithaneya Makkal Katchi v. The Election Commission of India and Another

Case No: WP 42811 of 2025