The CM has made the submission in his application to reject the Election Petition challenging his election victory from the Tiruchirappalli (East) constituency. Justice V Lakshminarayanan is expected to take up the plea for hearing on August 31^st (Monday).

In the plea challenging Vijay's victory from the Trichy East constituency, the DMK candidate from the constituency, Inigo Irudayaraj, argued that Vijay had suppressed material information in connection with pending cases against him and had not given details of his election expenses.

The petitioner also argued that Vijay was involved in corrupt practices by engaging children in his election campaign. The petitioner thus seeks to declare Vijay's victory as void and to declare him the winning candidate. The petitioner has also sought a stay on the bye-election for the constituency as a bye-election during the pendency of the plea would render it infructuous.

In his counter affidavit, Vijay submitted that the election petitioner's allegation that there was violation of the Election Commission of India's directive and the Model Code of Conduct was without disclosing any statutory cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act.

Vijay submitted that though the petitioner alleged that there was use of children, he had not demonstrated how the alleged use of children resulted in swaying of votes. He submitted that merely asserting that the votes were emotionally swayed cannot substitute for material facts necessary to show that the election results were affected.

“The petition further fails to plead the material facts demonstrating how the alleged use of children resulted in any particular number of votes being cast in my favour or otherwise materially affected the result. I submit that the mere assertion that voters were “emotionally swayer” and that the petitioner's prospects were affected cannot substitute for the material facts necessary to establish material effect upon the result of the election” Vijay said in his counter.

Vijay also submitted that though the petitioner relied on a letter issued by the ECI, he had failed to show how the letter would constitute an order under Section 100 of the RP Act.

Vijay also submitted that the petitioner had merely cited some provisions of the Act and used expressions like “materially affected”, “suppressed”, etc which does not constitute a cause of action.

“I state that the Petitioner has merely referred to several provisions of the ROPA, the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the Model Code of Conduct and various directions issued by the Election Commission of India and has thereafter proceeded to make broad conclusions that my election is liable to be declared void. Merely citing statutory provisions and repeatedly using expressions such as "materially affected", "suppressed", "concealed" and "corrupt practice", without pleading the primary and foundational facts necessary to bring the case within the statutory provisions, does not constitute a cause of action,” the counter says.

Vijay has thus urged the court to reject the election petition.

Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v S Inigo Irudayaraj

Case No: OA 903 of 2026