Madras High Court Dismisses Challenge To TVK MLA Sengottaiyan's Election Over Alleged Defect In Poll Affidavit Attestation

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that merely alleging that Form 26 was attested by a Notary whose certificate had expired could not constitute a complete cause of action under the Representation of People Act, without establishing that the violation materially affected the result of the election.

“The mere allegation that the affidavit in Form No.26 was attested by a Notary whose certificate of practice was allegedly not subsisting on the date of attestation, without pleading the necessary facts establishing the statutory violation and its material effect upon the result of the election, cannot constitute a complete cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act. The absence of such vital and basic facts is not a mere deficiency in particulars, but goes to the root of the cause of action pleaded in the election petition. In such circumstances, the election petition, which fails to disclose a complete cause of action, is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act,” the court said.

VB Prabhu, who contested for the AIADMK party had filed an election petition under Sections 80, 80A, 81, 82, 83, 84, 98(b)(c) read with Section 100, 100(1)(d)(iii), 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 along with the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and the Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Rules, 1967. The sole ground on which the election was challenged was that the Notary Public who attested the affidavit in Form No 26 did not possess a valid and subsisting certificate of practice as Notary at the relevant point in time.

Sengottaiyan had then filed an application to reject the election petition. It was submitted that the very same objection had already been raised before the Returning Officer and it was rejected after concluding that the Advocate who attested the affidavit possessed a valid and subsisting Notary certificate and was duly authorised to attest the affidavit. It was also argued that the non-renewal of the notary certificate will not constitute a “corrupt practice” under Section 123 of the RP Act or fall within any of the grounds provided under Section 100 of the RP Act. Thus, it was argued that there was no cause of action.

Prabhu, on the other hand, argued that the grounds raised by Sengottaiyan to reject the plea could not be considered at this stage as the same involved disputed questions of fact, which could be adjudicated only after a full-fledged trial by letting evidence.

The court noted that after filing of nomination papers, Prabhu and another person had raised the same objections before the Returning Office and the same were rejected after detailed enquiry. The court noted that the order of the Returning Officer had attained finality as the same were not challenged as per law. The court thus observed that after letting the Returning Officer's order attain finality, Prabhu had now raised the same objections before the court, without demonstrating any legally sustainable ground under RP Act.

The court also noted that except alleging that the returning officer had failed to accept the objections regarding validity of attestations made by the Advocate and Notary Public, Prabhu had not disclosed any other ground on which the election was sought to be declared void. The court also noted that there was no specific averment on how the alleged defect in the attestation of the affidavit materially affected the result of the election.

“Thus, even assuming the allegation regarding the validity of the Notary's attestation to be correct, the election petition does not disclose the essential facts necessary to constitute a cause of action under Section 100 of the RP Act. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the election petition, even if the averments contained therein are taken at their face value, does not disclose a complete cause of action or any legally sustainable ground for setting aside the election of the applicant,” the court said.

Thus, finding no cause of action, the court was inclined to reject the election petition and ordered accordingly.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. C. Munusamy Mr. L. P. Shanmugasundaram

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. I.S. Inbadurai

Case Title: KA Sengottaiyan v VB Prabhu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 446

Case No: Original Application No 807 of 2026 and ELP No 31 of 2026