Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Ensure Only Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists Contest From Constituencies Earmarked For SC Category

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking directions to all Returning Officers involved in the Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections to ensure that only those professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism are permitted to contest in elections from constituencies earmarked for the Scheduled Caste community. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 265]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has dismissed the plea filed by Arjunan Sampath, founding President of the Indu Makkal Katchi. The court underlined that it could not use its extraordinary powers under Article 226 to micro-manage the election process. The bench added that any grievance relating to disqualification or false declaration of a candidate should be redressed by filing an election petition.

"The Supreme Court time and again held that the High Courts cannot utilize their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interrupt, stall, or micromanage this process. Any grievance concerning the disqualification or false declaration of a candidate must wait until the conclusion of the election and must be ventilated solely through an Election Petition. Consequently, the present writ petition is completely misdirected and legally unmaintainable at this juncture," the court said.

The court also observed that the apprehension raised by the petitioner was entirely misplaced. The court held that there was a robust administrative framework to ensure that only those professing Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism are contesting from the constituencies earmarked for the SC/ST community. The court noted that the Election Commission's long-standing instructions mandate a Returning Officer to scrutinise the election papers and insist on production of a valid certificate issued by a competent authority to ensure compliance of the law. 

The court added that a returning officer had summary powers to examine nomination papers and reject any nomination, where it is clear that the candidate is not qualified or is disqualified from filling the seat. The court added that if any candidate fraudulently slipped past the scrutiny, it was always open for the aggrieved party to file an election petition. The court thus opined that there was no legal vaccum, necessitating the court to issue directions.

"In view of the clear bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, the statutory alternative remedy of filing an election petition as provided under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the existing detailed guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India on 2.7.2008, there is neither any legal vacuum nor any ground for this court to issue any directions," the court observed.

In his plea, Sampath has submitted that as per the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, issued under Article 341(1) of the Constitution, only persons professing the Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist religion should be deemed to be members of the Scheduled Caste community.

Sampath submitted that as per the last delimitation order, there are 44 constituencies in Tamil Nadu that have been reserved for the Scheduled Caste community. He added that for the upcoming assembly elections in the State, several political parties have announced their candidates for these 44 constituencies. However, he submitted that as per reliable sources, 90% of the candidates do not profess Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism and have converted to Christianity.

He submitted that any candidate who has openly declared and converted to Christianity should not be permitted to contest from a reserved constituency and his candidature should not be accepted by the returning officer.

The court, however, noted that Sampath had not produced any material to show that a candidate was contesting elections using a fraudulent certificate. 

"In the case at hand, the petitioner has failed to provide any evidence of a candidate contesting the recent elections using a fraudulent certificate, or of the Returning Officer overlooking the same," the court said.

Thus, noting that the petition was devoid of merits, the court dismissed the same.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.S.Karthikei Balan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan Standing Counsel 

Case Title: Arjunan Sampath v. The Chief Electoral Officer

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 265

Case No: WP 13425 of 2026