Only Voter Or Candidate From Same Constituency Can File Election Petition: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Against Senthil Balaji

Justice Anand Venkatesh thus dismissed an election petition filed by a voter against the victory of DMK's Sethil Balaji from Coimbatore South constituency. The court noted that the petition was more in the nature of a public interest litigation as the petitioner was not a voter in the constituency from which Balaji contested in the elections. Noting that an election petition cannot substitute for PIL, the court dismissed the plea.

“The present election petition is more in the nature of a public interest litigation since the petitioner seems to have entertained a grievance against the fourth respondent since the fourth respondent has many criminal cases pending against him and he is not happy with the fourth respondent being elected by the people of Coimbatore South Assembly Constituency. An election petition is not a substitute for public interest litigation, and election petitions can be entertained only if they satisfy the requirements of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,” the court said.

The court noted that if the word “elector” was given a broader meaning, any elector of any constituency could question the election of a candidate from another constituency . The court also added that such a broader meaning would open a Pandora's box as election petitions would galore after every assembly election.

“The legislature never intended, by including the explanation to Section 81, to expand the term “elector” to any person belonging to any Constituency to challenge the election of a successful candidate belonging to a different Constituency. If the interpretation as sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner is given to the term “elector”, it will open up Pandora's box and election petitions will galore after every Assembly election by means of various persons filing election petitions, challenging the election of any candidate across the State of Tamil Nadu,” the court said.

The court was dealing with a petition filed by K Prakasam challenging the victory of DMK's Senthil Balaji from Coimbatore South Assembly constituency. The petitioner had sought to declare the acceptance of Balaji's nomination as illegal and not in accordance with law. He also sought to declare the election result as null and void.

The petitioner had also sought to declare that the elections held for the Coimbatore South assembly constituency were irregular and biased and not free or fair. He had also sought to initiate disciplinary action against the Returning Officer for the Constituency for professional misconduct, alleging that he showed bias and preferential treatment towards Balaji.

The registry had raised an issue of maintainability, noting that the petitioner was neither a voter nor a candidate in the Coimbatore South assembly constituency.

When the court raised a question regarding the same, the petitioner side argued that as per an explanation to Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, an elector was any person who was entitled to vote in the election to which the petition relates, whether or not he had cast his vote or not. It was thus argued that the term “elector” should be given a wide meaning and any aggrieved person could maintain the election petition against the victory.

The court noted that as per Section 81(1) of the Act, an election petition could be filed either by any candidate at such election or by any elector. The court added that even if the explanation was taken into consideration, it would only mean that the election petition must relate to the constituency in which the concerned person is an elector. With respect to the candidates who can present an election petition, the court made it clear that only those candidates who stood for election in the particular constituency could file an election petition.

The court added that if the term elector was given a wider interpretation, the meaning assigned to “candidate” and the meaning assigned to “elector” would have different dimensions, going against the spirit of the Act.

The court thus held that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person with respect to the present constituency. The court added that the petitioner would have a cause of action only if he challenged the victory of a candidate who had contested in the constituency in which the petitioner voted. The court thus dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. B. Leelesh Sundaram For M/s. Nathan and Associates

Case Title: K Prakasam v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 340

Case No: ELP No. 37 of 2026