Madras High Court rejects election petition filed against the victory of DMK former Minister S. Regupathy from Thirumayam

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

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

The judge recalled the Supreme Court as well as the High Court to have repeatedly held that a legislator could not be subjected to trial on the basis of a vague and unsubstantiated election petition. | Photo Credit: FILE PHOTO

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (September 30, 2026) rejected an election petition filed against the victory of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) S. Regupathy from Thirumayam constituency by a margin of 1,492 votes.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan allowed an application filed by the MLA to reject the election petition filed by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate C. Chinthamani at the threshold without forcing him to undergo the long drawn process of trial without there being any cause of action.

The judge agreed with the senior counsel P. Wilson, representing the MLA, that all allegations levelled against his client in the election petition were vague, scandalous, and vexatious besides having been made with the sole intention to defame and embarrass the legislator.

Ms. Chinthamani had challenged the election of Mr. Regupathy, also a former Minister in the DMK Cabinet, on the ground that the counting of votes cast in as many as 18 polling booths were not counted properly and that her plea for recounting of those votes was not accepted by the Returning Officer.

However, the judge held that the request was an afterthought since neither the election petitioner nor her counting agent had raised any objection during the counting of each round of votes but had raised the request for recounting only after knowing the margin of victory.

“A recount cannot be done as a matter of routine or course. Unless the election petitioner provides clinching evidence to support their objections, a recount cannot be ordered. Consequently, the representation submitted by the election petitioner was rightly rejected by the Returning officer,” the judge wrote.

In so far as the other ground that Mr. Regupathy had declared as many as 26 criminal cases pending against him in his 2021 election affidavit but did not declare even a single case in the 2026 affidavit, Justice Ilanthiraiyan said, the law does not mandate disclosure of cases that had been closed.

“Form 26 clearly stipulates that a candidate must disclose the pendency of criminal cases; it does not mandate the disclosure of closed or disposed criminal cases... Therefore, the applicant had correctly stated that no criminal cases were pending against him as of the date of filing his nomination,” the judge ruled.

Further, stating that the election petitioner had failed to plead how the result of the election was materially affected, he recalled the Supreme Court as well as the High Court to have repeatedly held that a legislator could not be subjected to trial on the basis of a vague and unsubstantiated election petition.

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.