Holding that the election petition was bereft of material facts and disclosed no cause of action, the Madras High Court has rejected a challenge by a Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam candidate to the 1,492-vote victory of DMK’s S. Regupathy from the Thirumayam Assembly constituency, noting that neither the recount plea nor the allegation of suppression of criminal cases was backed by specific pleadings.
Chennai: The Madras High Court has rejected an election petition challenging the election of S. Regupathy of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) from No. 181 Thirumayam Legislative Assembly Constituency in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election, holding that the petition did not disclose a cause of action under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [S. Regupathy v. C. Chinthamani and Others].
Justice G. K. Ilanthiraiyan allowed Original Application No. 918 of 2026 filed by Regupathy under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, rejecting Election Petition No. 33 of 2026 filed by C. Chinthamani, the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate. The order was reserved on September 23, 2026 and pronounced on September 30, 2026. A connected application, O.A. No. 917 of 2026, seeking to strike off paragraphs 6 to 42 of the petition, was closed as a consequence.
Background of the case
Polling was held on April 23, 2026 and counting on May 4, 2026. Regupathy secured 58,201 votes and Chinthamani 56,709, a margin of 1,492 votes. Chinthamani sought a declaration that Regupathy’s election was null and void, production and inspection of the election records with a verification and recount of votes, and a declaration that she be treated as the returned candidate.
The petition rested on two grounds. First, it alleged that the Returning Officer rejected, without reasons, a May 4, 2026 representation seeking verification, scrutiny and a recount at specified polling stations, after the counting agents’ objections went unconsidered. Second, it alleged that Regupathy had disclosed 26 pending criminal cases in his 2021 affidavit but stated in his 2026 affidavit that none was pending, yet his nomination was accepted without scrutiny of the omission.
Contentions
Appearing for Regupathy, Senior Advocate P. Wilson argued that the allegations were frivolous and vexatious and failed to disclose material facts under Sections 80, 80A, 81 to 84, 100 and 101 of the Act. He submitted that the 26 cases shown in the 2021 affidavit had since been closed, that Form 26 requires disclosure only of pending cases, and that no case was pending when the 2026 affidavit was filed on April 6, 2026. He added that the petitioner had not pleaded crime numbers, police stations, offences or the stage of any case, nor produced any material showing a pending case.
For Chinthamani, Senior Advocate P. Valliappan submitted that allegations need not be proved conclusively at the threshold, that the counting objections, the station-wise verification sought and the manner in which the Returning Officer dealt with them were matters for the main petition, and that the criminal cases formed part of the background pleaded to show the alleged influence of Regupathy over officials, to be decided at trial. He relied on K.K. Ramachandran Master v. M.V. Sreyams Kumar, which holds that pleadings must contain material facts and not every item of evidence.
Counting allegation ‘an afterthought’
Applying Section 83, which requires a concise statement of material facts, the Court held that the omission of even one material fact leaves the cause of action incomplete, that the Court must look at the petition and nothing else on such an application, and that no evidence can cure a basic defect in pleadings. On the counting allegation, it found the averments silent on the manner in which the Returning Officer allegedly defaulted, and noted that the representation was made only after the outcome had become apparent and merely showed dissatisfaction with the final tally.
The Court recorded that all EVMs were counted booth-wise and round-wise, that each round was approved by the agents of the parties and signed in Form 17C, and that no objection was raised during counting. It added:
“Therefore, a recount cannot be granted as a matter of routine or course. Unless the election petitioner provides clinching evidence in the petition to support their objections, a recount cannot be ordered.”
The Court also noted that no allegation was raised about postal ballots, that objections were confined to EVMs in the specified booths, and that there is no scope for improper counting in EVMs, since control units display and tally each candidate’s votes in the presence of counting agents.
Criminal cases and Form 26
On the second ground, the Court found no pleading as to which particulars were suppressed, which FIR or criminal case remains pending, or whether Regupathy had been convicted in any case. It held that Form 26 requires disclosure of pending criminal cases, not closed or disposed cases or convictions that do not attract disqualification, and that Regupathy had therefore correctly stated that no case was pending on the date of nomination. Concluding on both grounds, the Court said:
“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.”
No pleading on material effect on result
The Court further held that the petitioner had not pleaded how the result of the election was materially affected, an essential ingredient of a challenge under Section 100 of the Act, and observed that a candidate duly elected cannot be subjected to a protracted trial on the strength of a vague and unsubstantiated petition. It rejected the petition accordingly.
Why The Election Petition Order Matters
The order applies the strict pleading standard of Section 83 to a close contest, holding that a thin margin by itself does not justify a recount or a trial without specific, material pleadings. It also restates that Form 26 calls for disclosure of pending criminal cases only, so that a petitioner alleging suppression must identify the case that was pending on the date of nomination. The findings are made on the pleadings alone, without any trial of the allegations.
Case Title: S. Regupathy v. C. Chinthamani and Others [Original Application Nos. 917 and 918 of 2026 in E.L.P. No. 33 of 2026]
Bench: Justice G. K. Ilanthiraiyan, Madras High Court
Date of Order: September 30, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate P. Wilson, for Advocate Richardson Wilson, for the applicant; Senior Advocate P. Valliappan, for Advocate R. M. Arun Swaminathan, for the first respondent; Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan for respondents 2 to 15