Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that no clear and triable issue was disclosed in the plea and was inclined to allow Velu's plea to reject the election petition.

“Once the averments relating to all the five heads are struck off, the consequential grounds raised in various paragraphs have also to be struck off. Once all the material averments are struck off, nothing remains in the election petition. No clear and triable issue was originally disclosed. And after the exercise of striking off pleadings, certainly no triable issue remains. The election petition is liable to be rejected as it does not disclose a cause of action,” the court observed

Arul had challenged the election on the ground of irregularities and illegalities in the scrutiny of nominations and polling day irregularities, as his election agent was not permitted to remain at the Polling Station while Velu's booth agents were permitted to remain in the polling booths. It was also argued that there were postal ballot irregularities since an unduly large number of postal ballots were rejected and treated as invalid.

Arul had also alleged counting day irregularities and argued that Velu's agents alone were permitted to carry mobile phones and other gadgets inside the counting areas. Arul also argued that there were EVM and VVPAT irregularities and one control unit was changed without any notice to him. It was thus argued that the irregularities had materially affected the election results.

Velu had filed an application seeking to reject the election petition. It was argued that though allegations were made against the Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer and the police officials as if they favoured Velu and committed corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the RP Act, it was not accompanied by an affidavit in Form 94A, which is mandatory under Section 83(1) of the Act.

Velu also argued that as per Section 100 of the Act, specific grounds have to be pleaded and ultimately proved with respect to non-compliance or irregularity and that it materially affected the result of the election. He argued that Arul had not disclosed whether the allegations were based on his personal knowledge or from his election, polling or counting agents and thus, was not in the mandatory form.

Velu pointed out that though Arul had alleged discrepancies with respect to disclosure of Velu's age in his nomination paper, Arul had not stated what Velu's correct age was or how the information furnished was incorrect. With respect to Arul's argument that the pending criminal cases that were disclosed in the previous election were not disclosed in the present plea, it was pointed out that the cases had been closed and Velu was only required to furnish details of cases pending against him on the date of nomination.

The court agreed with Velu and observed that Arul had not made any concise or specific pleading and had made vague allegations with respect to Velu's date of birth. It noted that except for stating that Velu had not disclosed pending criminal cases, Arul had not provided details of the cases that had been suppressed. Thus, the court observed that Arul's pleading was vexatious.

The court also noted that though Arul had argued that Velu's agents were allowed inside the polling booth and that he was treated unfairly, there was no pleading as to how the same violated any particular provision or how it affected the result of the election.

“With reference to polling day irregularities at the two booths, although it is stated that the election petitioner's agent was not allowed inside for some time, there is no plea that any malpractice was committed inside the booths that materially affected the election. As such, the averments in paragraph Nos.18 to 26 do not disclose material facts and are too vague to elicit a defence and vitiate a fair trial,” the court said.

With respect to EVM/VVPAT failure, the court noted that in those polling booths, Arul had received more votes than Velu and he had failed to show which provision of law was violated, and in its absence, the court could not entertain allegations against the working of EVMs/VVPATs.

Though the court agreed that an unusually large number of postal ballots, 955 in number, had been rejected, the court noted that the vote margin between the candidates was 2455 and even if all the postal ballots were to be taken as in favour of Arul, it would not change the result of the election.

Thus, finding to material, the court was not inclined to entertain the plea against Velu's victory.

Counsel for Applicant: Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Counsel and Mr. Apoorv Malthotra, for Mr. Richardson Wilson and Ms. N. Kalaivani

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. B. Arvind Srevatsa, for Mr. N. D. Sivakumaran, Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, Mr. Deepan

Case Title: EV Velu v Arul Arumugam and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 448

Case No: OA Nos 823 and 824 of 2026 in ELP No 47 of 2026