'Filing Election Petition Is Statutory Right':Madras High Court Asks ECI To Furnish Udhayanidhi Stalin's Election Papers To Losing Candidate

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan rejected the ECI's argument that the documents could be furnished only after 45 days from the date of election. The court noted that the Representation of People Act was a self-contained code that provided the time limits within which an election petition had to be filed (45 days).

The court observed that of ECI retained the documents, the petitioner would not be able to file the Election Petition with necessary supporting documents, and his right to move the court itself would become negatory.

“The right to contest an election has been held to be a statutory one. Similarly, the right to file an election petition is also statutory. As of now, it is governed under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,” the court said.

“We have already pointed out, the 1951 Act is a self-contained complete code. If an election petition is filed without supporting documents or material particulars, the purpose of approaching the court to resolve the dispute that the candidate seeks to raise, would in itself be rendered illusionary. If the Election Commission of India were to retain all the documents till the period is over and thereafter they furnish them to the petitioner, then, his right to move the Court would in itself be rendered negatory,” the court further observed.

The court was hearing a plea filed by Milany, who had contested from the Chepauk Thiruvallikeni Assembly Constituency but was not successful. Even before the elections, the petitioner had made representation to the Returning Officer seeking certified copies of election documents. The Returning Officer replied that the documents sought for have been displayed in the display board in the Returning Officer's office for public view and could be downloaded from the ECI website.

After the results were declared, he gave another representation seeking accepted nomination papers of Udayanidhi, rejected nomination papers of Udayanidhi, all rejection orders by the Returning Officer, all objections for the nominations, all orders/decisions of the Returning Officer accepting the nominations by overruling the objections, Form 7A (list of contesting candidates), and certified extract of grounds for rejection. Since the representation was not responded to, he approached the High Court

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the ECI submitted that as per a circular issued by the Principal Secretary of the Election Commission of India, the records relating to the Commission could be issued only after completion of 45 days from the date of declaration of results, on payment of prescribed fee.

The court noted that as per the provisions of the RP Act, the court was bound to dismiss any election petition which was not filed within 45 days. The court also noted that the rules of pleading in an election petition were exceptionally strict and unlike regular civil proceedings, a defect in election petition would normally lead to its immediate dismissal.

The court also noted that Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 barred the inspection of certain documents, which was not applicable to the documents sought for in the present case. The court noted that as per Rule 93(2), all other papers relating to the election were open to public inspection on payment of a nominal fee. The court also noted that the Rules nowhere provided that the documents could be furnished only after 45 days, as submitted by the ECI.

The court observed that by failing to furnish the documents till the end of the limitation period, the ECI would be violating the right of the candidate to approach the court. The court noted that the circular issued by the authorities defeats the very purpose of the Rules itself.

“The purpose of law is to give a remedy to a grievance expressed, whether real or imaginary by the litigant. By refusing to part with the documents, till the limitation period to file an election petition is over, which under Rule 93(2) of the 1961 Rules call upon the Election Commission of India to disclose, violate the right to approach the court. The letter issued by the Election Commission of India cannot be so read as Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan wants to do as it would defeat the purpose of the Rules itself,” the court said.

Thus, the court allowed the plea and directed the ECI to furnish the details as sought for by the petitioner.

It may be noted that at the time of pronouncement of order, the ECI informed the court that the documents sought for by the petitioner had been furnished to him. Recording the statement, the court closed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. J. Vinoth

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, Standing Counsel

Case Title: P Milany v Election Commission of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 249

Case No: WP No. 20680 of 2026