The Supreme Court has held that an election petition must be presented by the petitioner personally and not through counsel, upholding the dismissal of a challenge to the 2026 election of DMK MLA S. Regupathy.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has dismissed a special leave petition against the Madras High Court’s order throwing out an election petition against S. Regupathy, elected from the Thirumayam Assembly Constituency in the 2026 Tamil Nadu elections, holding that Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires the election petition to be presented by the petitioner himself [V. Pon. Paneerselvam v. S. Regupathy and Others].
A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed SLP (C) No. 30538 of 2026 on October 7, 2026, in a judgment authored by Justice Mishra (2026 INSC 1092).
The case
V. Pon. Paneerselvam challenged the election of S. Regupathy, alleging corrupt practices, including suppression and false declaration of spousal assets in the statutory Form 26 affidavits. These are the petitioner’s allegations and the Supreme Court has expressed no view on them. The election petition, however, was presented by the petitioner’s counsel and not by the petitioner personally.
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, relying on Rule 7 of the Madras High Court Election Petitions Rules, 1967, which requires personal presentation by the petitioner before the Assistant Registrar. The petitioner moved the Supreme Court against that dismissal.
What the Court said
The Court identified five components in Section 81(1): the petitioner must be a candidate or an elector; the petition must be presented “by” the petitioner; it must rest on grounds specified in Section 100(1) and Section 101; it must be presented in the High Court; and it must be presented within 45 days of the election. It described these requirements as “extremely specific and clear”.
An election petition is a serious proceeding which may result in the vitiation of an electoral process and that the procedure prescribed by an election statute must, therefore, be strictly followed.
The requirement of presentation under Section 81 cannot be viewed as a mere procedural formality divorced from the statutory scheme, as its compliance bears direct nexus with the maintainability of the election petition.
The Court held that presentation “by” the petitioner enables the High Court to undertake a preliminary verification so that the proceeding is not frivolous, and noted that under Section 86(1) the High Court shall dismiss an election petition that does not comply with Section 81. It held that Rule 7 of the Madras High Court Election Petitions Rules, 1967 cannot be said to travel beyond the statutory scheme.
The Court distinguished Sheo Sadan Singh v. Mohan Lal Gautam (1969), where an advocate’s clerk presented the petition in the petitioner’s presence, a situation not made out here. It concluded:
The Special Leave Petition is sans merit and stands dismissed.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling reiterates that election law is a creature of statute and that the procedure it prescribes is enforced strictly. A petitioner who has serious allegations of corrupt practice may find the petition dismissed at the threshold if the presentation requirement of Section 81 is not met.
It also confirms that High Court rules requiring personal presentation are consistent with the statute. Election petitioners and their counsel will need to ensure the petitioner is present when the petition is filed, within the 45-day limit.
Case Title: V. Pon. Paneerselvam v. S. Regupathy and Others [SLP (C) No. 30538 of 2026]
Bench: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Pranav Sachdeva (AOR), Mr. P Rohit Ram, Mr. Sanyam Jain and Ms. Khushboo Singhal for the petitioner; none for the respondent
