Madras High Court refuses to reject election plea against Udhayanidhi’s win from Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni

The Madras High Court on Friday (November 13, 2026) refused to reject an election petition filed by P. Milany of Theni district, challenging the victory of Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Udhayanidhi Stalin from the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni Assembly constituency in the 2026 general elections.

Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed two applications filed by the LoP urging the court to reject the election petition and strike off substantial pleadings made by the election petitioner. The judge decided to proceed with the trial and directed the applicant to file his reply statement by December 11, 2026.

He disagreed with Mr. Udhayanidhi that the day of declaration of election result must also be taken into account while calculating the limitation period of 45 days for filing an election petition and therefore, the present election petition must be dismissed for having been filed on the 46th day.

The judge said, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Tarun Prasad Chatterjee versus Dinanath Sharma (2000) had categorically held that Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would apply to election petitions too and so the day of declaration of result must be excluded while calculating the limitation period.

Though Mr. Udhayanidhi’s counsel relied upon a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Youaraj Rai versus Chander Bahadur Karki (2006), Justice Murugan said, such reliance was “misplaced” since the applicability of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act was not an issue that had to be decided in the case.

The judge further held that the other grounds raised by the election petitioner were triable issues which could not be decided without letting in evidence and therefore, the LOP had not made out a case either for striking out the pleadings or for rejecting the election petition at the threshold.

The applicant was declared elected on securing 62,992 votes as against his nearest rival candidate D. Selvam of the TVK, who had garnered 55,852 votes. However, the election petition was filed by another candidate, Mr. Milany, who too had contested from the constituency as an Independent and secured 30 votes.

The election petitioner had challenged the victory of Mr. Udhayanidhi on grounds such as alleged suppression of his assets in the election affidavit, improper acceptance of his nomination form due to certain discrepancies in the attestation made by a notary public and so on.

Though the LoP denied all charges levelled against him by the election petitioner, the judge said, the veracity of the allegations could be ascertained only after a full fledged trial. The judge said, the pleadings in the election petition could not be termed as “unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious” in order to strike them off.