Madras High Court Closes Plea Seeking Expeditious Action On Complaint Against Udhayanidhi Stalin After Magistrate Issues Pre-Cognisance Notice
Upasana Sajeev
15 Oct 2026 6:16 PM IST
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (October 15), closed a plea with respect to the delay in numbering a complaint filed against the Leader of the Opposition, Udhayanidhi Stalin, over alleged corrupt practice during the 2026 Assembly Elections.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan has closed the plea after taking note of a report from the Metropolitan Magistrate, informing that the complaint has been numbered and a pre-cognisance notice has been issued. The court had previously asked the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Georgetown, Chennai, to state how long it would take to number the criminal complaint.
The court thus closed a plea by Milany, who had also contested from Chepauk constituency. It may be noted that Milany had earlier approached the court seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to furnish election-related documents of Udhayanidhi Stalin and other documents sought by Milany. The court had observed that filing an election petition was a statutory right.
Milany submitted that the documents received from the District Election Officer confirmed the corrupt practice by Udhayanidhi, amounting to undue influence on the voters. Arguing that Udhayanidhi had made false declarations in his election affidavit, Milany submitted that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, a false declaration with regard to the assets of the candidate or his/her spouse constitutes corrupt practice irrespective of the impact of such a false declaration.
Milany further submitted that he had filed a complaint with the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act, on September 8, 2026. He added that when a question was raised regarding the maintainability of the complaint, he had made an oral clarification and also filed his written clarification.
He submitted that though the complaint was filed in September, and more than 25 days have lapsed since, the complaint has not yet been accepted or returned for want of compliance. He submitted that the complaint had been kept pending without assigning any case number.
Milany submitted that Udhayanidhi was a highly influential person with both men and money power, and keeping the complaint pending without taking cognisance of the same amounted to travesty of justice. He added that though special courts were formed with the sole intention to expedite prosecution in cases involving MPs and MLAs, the stark reality was that in spite of presenting the complaint, the same was not taken on record till date.
He had thus approached the court seeking to direct the Magistrate to expedite and take on file his complaint.
