The Madras High Court directed the Election Commission of India to furnish election records relating to Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin to an unsuccessful candidate seeking to challenge the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni election result. The Court held that delaying access to documents cannot defeat a candidate’s statutory right to file an election petition.
The Madras High Court has directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide election-related records of Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin to an unsuccessful candidate who intends to file an election petition challenging the outcome of the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni Assembly election.
The Court held that the Election Commission cannot refuse or delay access to relevant election documents in a manner that effectively frustrates a candidate’s statutory right to challenge an election result before the High Court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan passed the order on June 8 while deciding a petition filed by P. Milany, an independent candidate who contested the election from the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni Assembly constituency.
Background: Contest Over Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni Election Result
The dispute arose from the recently concluded Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections, where Udhayanidhi Stalin, contesting on behalf of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), emerged victorious from the prestigious Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni constituency. The constituency holds considerable political significance in Tamil Nadu and has traditionally attracted considerable public and political attention.
Following the declaration of results, P. Milany, who had contested as an independent candidate, expressed his intention to challenge Stalin’s election before the High Court through an election petition under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In preparation for initiating such proceedings, Milany sought access to various election records maintained by election authorities.
The petitioner sought several records that he considered necessary to examine the validity of the election process and prepare an election challenge. Among the documents requested were certified copies of Udhayanidhi Stalin’s accepted nomination paper filed in Form 2B, his election affidavit submitted in Form 26, and the checklist of documents filed along with the nomination papers. Milany also sought copies of any nomination papers filed by Stalin that may have been rejected during scrutiny.
In addition, he requested copies of orders relating to the rejection of fifteen nomination papers during the scrutiny process, objections received by the Returning Officer, decisions rendered on objections against candidates, and documents evidencing acceptance of nominations despite objections. The petitioner further sought a copy of Form 7A containing the official list of contesting candidates as well as relevant extracts from the Handbook for Returning Officers. According to Milany, these records were essential for assessing whether there had been any procedural irregularities or legal violations during the nomination and scrutiny process.
The Court was informed that Milany had begun seeking information from election authorities even before the election process concluded. Following the declaration of results, he submitted fresh representations dated May 15 and May 20 requesting access to the documents.
In those representations, he specifically informed the authorities that the records were required for the purpose of filing an election petition challenging the returned candidate’s victory. Despite these requests, the documents were not immediately supplied, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Election Commission’s Stand
Opposing the petition, the Election Commission relied upon an internal circular issued in 2024 governing the supply of election records. Appearing for the Commission, Standing Counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan argued that election-related documents could be furnished only after the expiry of forty-five days from the declaration of results and upon payment of the prescribed fees.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Against Udhayanidhi Stalin Over Sanatana Dharma Remarks
The Commission maintained that since the statutory period of forty-five days had not elapsed, the petitioner had no enforceable right to seek immediate access to the records. According to the ECI, the request was therefore premature and liable to be rejected.
Court’s Observations:
The High Court found substantial difficulty with the Election Commission’s interpretation. The Bench observed that Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act prescribes a strict limitation period of forty-five days for filing an election petition challenging an election result.
Importantly, the Court noted that this limitation period is mandatory and cannot be extended or condoned by the Court. The judges pointed out that if a candidate is denied access to crucial election records until the expiry of the same forty-five-day period, the candidate’s statutory right to challenge the election would become meaningless. The Court emphasized that election law is highly technical in nature and requires strict compliance with statutory requirements.
The Bench also referred to Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, which requires election petitions to contain precise and complete material facts supporting the challenge. The Court observed that failure to comply with these requirements could result in the rejection of the election petition at the threshold stage itself. Consequently, a prospective election petitioner must have adequate access to relevant records before filing the petition.
Without such documents, a candidate may be unable to formulate proper pleadings or substantiate allegations of electoral irregularities. It was in this context that the Court examined whether the Election Commission’s refusal could be legally sustained.
The Division Bench concluded that the Election Commission’s stand would effectively extinguish the petitioner’s statutory remedy.
Rejecting the argument advanced by the Commission, the Court observed:
“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 made it clear that administrative procedures cannot be interpreted in a manner that defeats substantive legal rights conferred by statute. According to the Bench, access to relevant election records must be provided within a timeframe that allows a candidate to meaningfully exercise the right to challenge an election.
The Court also examined Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, which governs access to election-related documents. The Election Commission had sought to rely on restrictions contained in the rule. However, the Bench observed that the prohibition under Rule 93 applies only to a limited category of highly sensitive election records, such as ballot papers, counterfoils of ballot papers, and marked electoral rolls.
The documents sought by Milany did not fall within these protected categories. The Court therefore held that there was no legal impediment to furnishing certified copies of the records requested by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Bench directed the District Election Officer to provide the relevant documents within two weeks. An important development occurred shortly before the judgment was pronounced. The Election Commission informed the Court that several documents sought by the petitioner had already been supplied through email on June 6.
These included certified copies of Udhayanidhi Stalin’s accepted nomination papers, copies of rejected nomination papers, Form 7A containing the list of contesting candidates, and the English version of the affidavit filed in Form 26.
The Court took note of this development while proceeding to decide the larger issue regarding access to election records. Nevertheless, the Bench found it necessary to clarify the legal position and issue directions concerning the remaining documents sought by the petitioner.
The petitioner, P. Milany, was represented before the Court by advocate J. Vinoth.
Case Title: Milany v. Election Commission of India
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE