Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Debar AIADMK's Edappadi Palaniswami From 2026 Assembly Polls Over Alleged Derogatory Speeches

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan took note of the decision of the Supreme Court Jafar ImamNaqvi v. Election Commission of India, wherein the court had held that a public interest litigation pertaining to speeches delivered during the election campaign was not maintainable.

“The Supreme Court emphatically held that even a public interest litigation pertaining to speeches delivered during election campaign is not maintainable. In view of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the decision, referred supra, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition, which is filed by a third party,” the court said.

The plea was filed by Va Pugazhendi, Chief Secretary of the Puratchi Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, seeking direction to the Chief Election Commissioner to consider his representation. Pugazhendi submitted that Palaniswami, General Secretary of the AIADMK party, while delivering a public speech at Chennai in connection with the general elections, had made derogatory statements against Chief Minister MK Stalin and Deputy Chief Minister Udayanidhi Stalin.

Pugazhendi submitted that the speeches were against the Model Code of Conduct and would attract Section 125 of the Representation of People Act (Promoting enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens). Pugazhendi submitted that if Palanisamy was to continue making such speeches, it would lead to public disorder in Tamil Nadu, as DMK (the ruling party) and the AIADMK (opposition party) cadres might clash with each other, causing unrest, disturbing law and order, and potentially leading to riots.

Pugazhendi submitted that though he had submitted representations to the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu on April 10, no action had been taken till date. Thus, he had approached the court seeking directon to the authorities to consider his representation.

When the case came up before the bench on Monday, the court wondered how it could prevent persons from making statements.

"Can we stop anyone from speaking? No one can be stopped. How is this petition maintainable by this petitioner when no statement has been made against you? The statement is alleged to have been made against a third party. How are you affected?" the court asked.

Later, after hearing the party, the court said it would pass orders. Now, the court has dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R.Thirumoorthy

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan Standing Counsel

Case Title: Va Pugazhendi v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 173

Case No: WP No.15449 of 2026