Click the Play button to listen to article

The Madras High Court, on Friday (November 13), dismissed an application filed by the Leader of Opposition in the State of Tamil Nadu, Udhayanidhi Stalin, seeking to reject an election petition challenging his victory from the Chepauk Assembly Constituency. 

Dismissing his application, Justice G Arul Murugan directed Udhayanidhi to file his counter affidavit in the election petition within 4 weeks. 

Detailed order copy awaited

The election petition has been filed by Milany, who had also contested from Chepauk constituency. Milany had earlier approached the court seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to furnish election-related documents of Udhayanidhi Stalin and other documents sought by Milany. The court had observed that filing an election petition was a statutory right. Later, Milany had filed the present Election Petition. 

Milany submitted that the documents received from the District Election Officer confirmed the corrupt practice by Udhayanidhi, amounting to undue influence on the voters. Arguing that Udhayanidhi had made false declarations in his election affidavit, Milany submitted that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, a false declaration with regard to the assets of the candidate or his/her spouse constitutes corrupt practice irrespective of the impact of such a false declaration.

It may be noted that Milany had also filed a complaint with the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, on September 8, 2026. Arguing that no action had been taken on the complaint and it had been kept pending without numbering, Milany had approached the High Court seeking directions to the Magistrate to act on the same. 

Milany had submitted that Udhayanidhi was a highly influential person with both men and money power, and keeping the complaint pending without taking cognisance of the same amounted to a travesty of justice. He added that though special courts were formed with the sole intention to expedite prosecution in cases involving MPs and MLAs, the stark reality was that in spite of presenting the complaint, the same was not taken on record till date. Noting that the complaint had been numbered and a pre-cognisance notice had been issued, the court ultimately closed the plea. 

Tags: