Election Petition Challenging Victory On Grounds Except Corruption Becomes Infructuous After Expiry Of Assembly Term: Madras High Court

While dismissing the plea filed by the AIADMK candidate in the constituency, V Ramu, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that the plea had become infructuous as the term of the Assembly had already ended and the new government has been formed.

The judge noted that when an election petition was filed on grounds other than corruption, the petition would be rendered infructuous after the expiry of the term of the assembly. The court noted that since both Duraimurugan and Ramu had lost in the fresh elections and both had lost the MLA seat, the plea had become infructuous.

“When the election petition was not filed on the ground of corrupt practice as against the first respondent, the rest of the ground would be rendered infructuous because of the subsequent development such as expiry of term of assemble itself. Thereafter, fresh election has now been conducted in which, both the petitioner and the first respondent had contested in the very same constituency viz., No.40 Katpadi Assembly Constituency and both had lost in their election to the post of MLA of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, nothing survives in this election petition to proceed further since this Court is of the considered view that the election petition has become infructuous,” the court said.

Ramu had approached the court to declare Duraimurugan's victory void and to order reverification and recount of all votes polled by postal ballot and by EVMs. Ramu also sought to declare him as the winning candidate.

Ramu had alleged that the counting of votes was in direct violation of and non-compliance of the provisions and law, which materially affected the result of the elections. He argued that the Returning Officer had failed to count the postal votes and the votes in 5 EVMs, in violation of Rule 54-A of the Rules. He argued that though he had raised an objection, the Returning Officer failed to receive the written complaint lodged by him.

On the other hand, Duraimurugan argued that the allegations were bereft of material. He argued that the petition did not disclose any cause of action and that no material facts were pleaded. He argued that there were absolutely no allegations against his victory as the MLA. It was argued that Ramu had simply claimed that he was materially affected by the manner of counting, but had failed to show any violation of law, rule or order passed by the ECI.

Duraimurugan also argued that Ramu had failed to raise objections on the date of counting itself and the complaint was after expiry of 13 days from the date of counting. He also pointed out that since the election itself was challenged on grounds other than corruption, it would become infructuous after the expiry of the term of assembly.

The court agreed with Duraimurugan and noted that Ramu had failed to provide any material fact regarding allegations of improper counting of votes. The court noted that Ramu had also not provided the number of votes, which, as per his allegation, were not counted. The court also noted that Ramu had not given any complaint on the date of counting but had lodged a complaint after 13 days. The court noted that the complaint was lodged only for the purpose of filing the Election Petition.

Thus, noting that the averments in the petition were vague, bald, bereft of materials and also considering that the term of assembly had already ended, the court dismissed the plea as infructuous.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. B. Arvind Srevatsa

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.Richardson Wilson For M/s. Wilson Associates, Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan For M/s. G.R. Associates

Case Title: V Ramu v Duraimurugan and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 304

Case No: E.L.P.No.4 of 2021