मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय ने पूर्ण कारण और आवश्यक तथ्यात्मक विवरण प्रस्तुत न करने के आधार पर सिविल प्रक्रिया संहिता के आदेश 7 नियम 11 के तहत तमिलनाडु के नेताओं के ए सेन्गोट्टैयन और ईवी वेलू की जीत को चुनौती देने वाली दो चुनाव याचिकाओं (election petitions) को प्रारंभिक स्तर पर ही खारिज कर दिया।
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed two separate election petitions challenging the victories of Tamil Nadu Minister KA Sengottaiyan (TVK) and senior DMK leader EV Velu in their respective Assembly constituencies. Both challenges were rejected at the preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for failing to disclose a complete cause of action and omitting material facts required under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Dismissal of Challenge Against KA Sengottaiyan
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan rendered the decision dismissing the election petition filed against TVK leader and state minister KA Sengottaiyan, who won the election from the Gobichettipalayam Assembly constituency.
The petitioner, VB Prabhu, sought to invalidate Sengottaiyan’s election on a technical objection regarding his election nomination papers. Specifically, the petitioner contended that the notary public who attested Sengottaiyan’s election affidavit (Form 26) did not hold a valid, active certificate of practice on the date the document was executed.
Rejecting this argument, Justice Ilanthiraiyan observed that a hyper-technical flaw in attestation cannot form the sole basis for unseating an elected representative. The Court emphasized that even if the petitioner's allegation regarding the notary’s credential were accepted as true, the law requires explicit pleadings demonstrating how such an infirmity directly and materially affected the result of the election.
The Court held that a bare assertion of non-compliance, without concise statements showing a material impact on the electoral outcome, fails to constitute a cause of action. Consequently, the High Court rejected the petition for lacking essential legal grounds. In the proceedings, Advocates C. Munusamy and L.P. Shanmugasundaram represented Sengottaiyan, Advocate I.S. Inbadurai appeared for the petitioner, and Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan represented the Returning Officer.
Challenge Against DMK Leader EV Velu Rejected
In a parallel matter, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy ruled in favor of DMK leader EV Velu, bringing an end to the election petition challenging his victory from the Tiruvannamalai constituency, where he had secured a win by a margin of 2,455 votes.
The election petition was brought by TVK candidate Arul Arumugam, who alleged widespread procedural discrepancies across various stages of the election process, including nomination scrutiny, postal ballot processing, appointment of polling agents, vote counting, and the handling of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs).
EV Velu moved an application seeking rejection of the challenge, maintaining that the petition consisted of broad, unsubstantiated claims. Senior Advocate P. Wilson, representing Velu, argued that the petitioner failed to furnish the indispensable material facts required by statutory election law. The Court was informed that the petition omitted crucial specifics, such as the identifying serial numbers of the EVM or VVPAT units alleged to have been tampered with, the exact dates of the alleged interference, or the specific statutory provisions said to have been breached.
Finding force in these arguments, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy concluded that vague and generalized allegations regarding the voting or counting process cannot sustain an election petition.
Description: CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has rejected two election petitions challenging the victories of Tamil Nadu Minister KA Sengottaiyan (TVK) from Gobichettipalayam and DMK leader EV Velu from Tiruvannamalai.
Both petitions were dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for failing to disclose a complete cause of action or material facts required under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
In Sengottaiyan’s case, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held that an alleged defect in the notary's certificate of practice attesting the election affidavit does not automatically invalidate an election without proof of material impact. In Velu’s case, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy ruled that vague allegations regarding EVMs and voting procedures lacked concrete details to warrant a trial.