Madras High Court dismisses writ petition challenging Vilathikulam DMK MLA Markandayan’s victory

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Vilathikulam DMK MLA G.V. Markandayan on July 22, 2026 | Photo Credit: N. Rajesh

The Madras High Court on Monday (September 21, 2026) dismissed as withdrawn a writ petition challenging the election of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) G.V. Markandayan from Vilathikulam constituency in Thoothukudi district on the ground that he had allegedly suppressed his property details in the election affidavit.

First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan refused to grant any kind of liberty to the petitioner after observing that the 45-day period within which an election petition could be filed, challenging the victory of the returned candidate, had already expired and hence there was no remedy available under law as on date.

When the writ petitioner’s counsel continued to persist on grant of liberty to proceed in accordance with any other remedies available to him under law, the judges warned they would impose heavy costs if such liberty was sought for. “Do you want to circumvent the law by obtaining such liberty from this court?” Justice Murugan asked before permitting the petitioner P. Vimaladevi, a voter from Vilathikulam, to withdraw her case.

In her affidavit, the petitioner accused the DMK MLA of having concealed a long list of immovable properties owned by him and his wife M. Rebecca Anita and alleged those details had been intentionally suppressed especially when the returned candidate was not a newly-elected MLA but someone who had already served as a legislator who knows the process well.

The petitioner claimed the alleged non-disclosure of all assets was liable to be examined under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and the requirement to provide full and true particulars in the Form 26 election affidavit. She cited Supreme Court’s 2013 verdict in Resurgence India’s case in support of her case.

It was also contended the alleged failure on the part of the MLA to furnish full and true particulars regarding the assets owned by him and his spouse had materially affected the right of the voters to know the relevant particulars before exercising their franchise. Therefore, the petitioner urged the court to declare the election of Mr. Markandayan from Vilathikulam as null and void.

The writ petition was filed in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on June 17, 2026 but got numbered only on September 8, 2026. Thereafter, it was transferred to the principal seat in Chennai and listed before the first Division Bench for deciding its maintainability.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.