Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that the primary allegation made against Shanmugan was that he was involved in distributing money to the voters, which constituted a corrupt practice under the Representation of People Act. The court observed that the allegations were vague, bald and bereft of material facts.

“Non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of pleading material facts constituting the alleged corrupt practice may render an election petition liable to rejection at the threshold. In the present case, the allegations levelled against the returned candidate are vague, bald and bereft of the essential material facts and particulars necessary to constitute a complete cause of action,” the court observed.

The election petition was filed by P. Kamalakkannan, District Deputy Convener of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Advocates Association. The election petitioner alleged that on April 19, 2026, during the election campaign at Kongarappattu Village, a resident of the village had witnessed distribution of cash of Rs.1,000/- to voters by Shanmugam's party functionaries. Kamalakkannan also alleged that another villager had witnessed the party functionaries canvassing votes in favour of the returned candidate in consideration of monetary payments.

Kamalakannan alleged that the party functionaries had distributed cash and coupons containing the name and symbol of the political party. He also claimed to have video recordings of the same. Thus, alleging that the acts constituted corrupt practice, the election was challenged.

Shanmugam had filed the present application to reject the election petitioner. He alleged that the election petition was an abuse of process of law and filed with political malice. It was argued that the election petition was filed in furtherance of a political agenda, and not on the basis of any bona fide grievance.

Shanmugam argued that the election petition did not mention the names or details of the persons who had allegedly distributed cash and coupons, total amount of money and the number of coupons. It was also argued that the election petitioner had failed to disclose how Shanmugam had consented to the distribution of cash and coupons. It was alleged that merely stating two villagers had witnessed the distribution, without providing any requisite details would not cure the defects in the pleadings.

The court noted that the election petitioner had not instituted the plea in his individual capacity as a voter, but as a representative of a political party. The court thus remarked that the election petition was filed on account of political vendetta and animosity against the returned candidate.

The court also noted that the petitioner had failed to disclose essential material facts necessary to constitute the alleged corrupt practice of bribery. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to specify the names or approximate number of voters who had allegedly received cash or coupons. The court also noted that the petition did not disclose the total amount or number of coupons allegedly distributed. Thus, the court observed that the petition had not set out the foundational facts.

“Even assuming that the coupons and model cheques were distributed, the Election Petition does not disclose the material facts demonstrating how such distribution was allegedly carried out with the knowledge and consent of the returned candidate. With regard to the video recording relied upon by the election petitioner, the pleadings do not specify when, where, to whom, or in what manner the returned candidate allegedly consented to or authorised the distribution of the coupons and model cheques,” the court observed.

Thus, the court was inclined to reject the election petition and allowed Shanmugam's application.

Counsel for Applicant: Mr. M. Sricharan Rangarajan, Senior Counsel for Mr. K. Gowtham Kumar A. P. Balaji, R. Harshini

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. J. Ravindran, Senior Counsel for Mr. A. Damodaran, M/s. A. S. Neela Narayani, Mr. M. Karthikeyan, M/s. M. B. Ramya