Madras High Court Quashes Case Against BJP Minister L Murugan For Violating Election Norms During 2024 Election

Justice AD Jagadish Chandira quashed the two cases on Thursday (2nd April).

The prosecution case originated from a complaint lodged by the Deputy Tahsildar based on a report of the Village Administrative Officer, alleging that Murugan had engaged in election-related misconduct while contesting in the 2024 Parliamentary Elections from the Nilgiris Constituency. It was argued that during his visit to the Hariyudaiyan Temple and the Kadanadu Community Centre, he had gathered local residents, causing unlawful assembly and unauthorised election campaigning before 100 persons. Though the FIR was first registered for offences under Section 171E of the IPC, it was later changed to Sections 143 and 171H of the IPC.

Murugan argued that this shifting of sections was without any factual foundation and was malicious and arbitrary. He submitted that the offence under Section 143 was attracted when there was an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit an offence. In the present case, he argued that there was no assembly with an unlawful object and the local residents had merely gathered to greet a public figure, which, by no stretch of imagination, would constitute an unlawful assembly.

With respect to charges under Section 171H of IPC, which deals with illegal payment in connection with elections, Murugan argued that there was no allegation of expenditure, inducement, or unauthorised payment. It was submitted that even as per the statement of the witnesses, Murugan was only greeted by the local residents, and there was nothing to show that an illegal payment was made.

Murugan submitted that the case was motivated by a political vendetta by his opponents, who were attempting to malign him through false and fabricated allegations. He submitted that the magistrate had mechanically taken cognisance without examining whether the ingredients of the alleged offence had been made out. It was submitted that this mechanical cognisance without any materials was a ground for quashing the case. He submitted that subjecting him to trial, without any material, would violate his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

It was also submitted that election related offence often requires scrutiny by the Election Commission or sanction under procedural law before prosecution, which was not obtained in the present case. It was argued that this absence of procedural compliance would vitiate the entire proceedings.

Thus, arguing that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, he urged the court to quash the case against him on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam.

Case Title: L Murugan v. The State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 142

Case No: Crl. OP No 8550 of 2026