A smudge of indelible ink was not enough: the Madras High Court quashes FIR against an Australian citizen booked for allegedly voting in the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, holding that nothing on record showed he had voted in the constituency named in the case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: The Madras High Court has quashed a first information report registered against an Australian citizen holding an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card, who had been booked on the allegation that he cast a vote in the 22-Virugambakkam Assembly Constituency in the 2026 Tamil Nadu elections [Chandirasekar v. State].
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan allowed the petition, filed under the criminal original jurisdiction of the High Court, and set aside Crime No. 306 of 2026 of the R5 Virugambakkam police station, Chennai.
Where the prosecution’s theory broke down
The Court found the theory internally inconsistent. In its view, the police had mechanically treated the petitioner and another elector of a similar name as one and the same person.
If the petitioner possessed a Voter ID card for the Erode Constituency, he could not have voted in the 22-Virugampakkam Assembly Constituency.
There is no material to show that he cast his vote at 22-Virugampakkam assembly constituency.
Verification of the polling station CCTV footage, which the petitioner had sought, was still pending, the Court recorded, and the allegation was therefore left without any substantive supporting evidence. Finding no basis to continue the prosecution, it quashed the FIR, which also clears the way for the petitioner’s travel to Australia.
How the FIR came about
The petitioner had arrived in India on March 17, 2026. On May 13, as he was departing from Chennai airport, immigration officials noticed indelible ink on his left index finger and suspected that he had voted. An FIR was registered the same day under Sections 172, 318(2) and 337 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act. These allegations of cheating, forgery and false declaration were never tested at trial.
The two positions
The petitioner told the Court that he holds a voter identity card for the Erode constituency, and that on the polling day he was at his sister’s residence in Tiruchirappalli, which he said CCTV footage would confirm. The State’s case rested on the complaint and on the similarity of his name to that of a voter on the Virugambakkam roll.
Why the order matters
Basic identity checks must precede the prosecution of a citizen for an electoral offence, the order shows. A match of names, without the electoral roll entry and the polling record, cannot by itself sustain allegations as serious as impersonation and forgery.
It also underlines that once a petitioner produces documents showing where he was on the polling day, the investigating agency must test that material and cannot rest on suspicion raised by a mark on the finger.
Case Title: Chandirasekar v. State [Crl.O.P. No. 25683 of 2026]
Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, Madras High Court
Date of Order: September 24, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Vikram Veerasamy B for the petitioner; Government Advocate M. Dinesh for the State