The Madras High Court has rejected a plea challenging the victory of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's S Regupathy from Thirumayam Legislative Assembly Constituency in the 2026 assembly elections.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan allowed an application filed by Regupathy to reject the election petition moved by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate from the constituency, Chintamani.

It may be noted that Chintamani had lost to Regupathy by a margin of 1492 votes. The court noted that all the allegations raised by Chintamani were vague and unsupported. Thus, the court was inclined to reject the plea.

"The election petition is therefore vague, fails to disclose any material facts, and fails to establish a cause of action. All allegations contained therein are vague, scandalous, and vexatious, made with the sole intention to defame and embarrass the applicant. Both primary allegations have been made without specific pleadings or material facts; hence, there is no independent cause of action against the applicant to maintain the election petition," the court observed.

Chintamani had challenged the election victory on alleged non-disclosure of criminal cases and allegations regarding transparency of the counting process. It was submitted that Regupathy had disclosed 26 criminal cases in his 2021 election affidavit but had not disclosed the same in his 2026 election affidavit. It was argued that despite his omission, his nomination was blindly accepted and he was permitted to contest the elections.

Chintamani also argued that during the counting of votes, the actions of the authorized counting agents gave rise to serious doubts regarding the correctness and transparency of the counting and tabulation process. It was submitted that though an objection was raised, the same was not considered, giving rise to serious and bona fide apprehensions regarding the correctness, transparency, and accuracy of the exercise.

Seeking to reject the election petition, Regupathy argued that the allegations were unnecessary, frivolous, scandalous, and vexatious. It was submitted that the allegations in their entirety failed to disclose any cause of action or material facts necessary to maintain the election petition. It was submitted that at the time of filing nominations, there was no necessity to mention the criminal cases which were closed, but Chintamani had proceeded on the assumption that Regupathy had concealed criminal cases. It was further submitted that Chintamani had not produced any evidence with respect to any criminal case that was pending against Regupathy, on the date of filing nomination.

It was also argued that though Chintamani had argued that the election process was not followed, nothing was produced to show which provision of law was violated, and such vague allegations, without materials, were liable to be dismissed.

The court agreed with Regupathy's arguments. The court noted that the election petition was vague and devoid of any merits.

"On a perusal of the entire election petition, it is revealed that all the allegations are vague, bald, and devoid of any basis. Although the election petitioner states that a proper counting process was not followed by the Returning Officer in several booths, the averments are completely silent on the specific manner and procedure in which the Returning Officer allegedly defaulted," the court said.

The court further noted that at the time of the counting process, neither Chintamani nor her agents had raised any objections but had made allegations against the procedure now, which was an afterthought. The court thus held that there was absolutely no justification for ordering a recount of votes, especially in the absence of valid and specific grounds, as there is no scope for improper counting in Electronic Voting Machines. The court also added that unless the election petitioner showed clinching evidence, a recount of votes could not be ordered in a routine manner.

The court also added that though Chintamani alleged that Regupathy had not disclosed criminal cases pending against him in his nomination form, she had not produced any details to show which cases were not disclosed by Regupathy. The court reiterated that there was no legal obligation to disclose criminal cases that had been closed prior to or as of the date of filing the nomination and affidavit.

Thus, noting that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action and failed to satisfy the statutory requirements under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the court was not inclined to grant the relief claimed for and rejected the election petition.

Counsel for Applicant: Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel for Mr.Richardson Wilson

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.M.Arun Swaminathan, Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan