‘Not maintainable’: Madras HC junks Stalin’s plea for recounting in Kolathur

The Madras High Court on Thursday (September 3) dismissed as not maintainable a writ petition filed by DMK president and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin challenging the Kolathur Assembly election result and seeking a full recount of VVPAT slips, verification of all electronic voting machines, and a declaration that he, and not TVK candidate VS Babu, was the winner.

Defeat in stronghold

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the plea could not be used to bypass the constitutional bar on challenging an election except through an election petition. Results of the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election were declared on May 4.

In Kolathur, long treated as Stalin’s stronghold after his wins in 2011, 2016 and 2021, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam’s Babu polled 82,997 votes. Stalin secured 74,202 votes. The margin was 8,795 votes. The defeat became one of the most visible symbols of the DMK’s loss of power.

DMK invokes SC-permitted verification

On May 7, within three days of the result, Stalin applied, with the prescribed fee, for post-counting checking and verification of the burnt memory/microcontroller of 14 of the 286 EVM sets used in the constituency. That 5 per cent sample check is the route opened by the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India.

Also read: Stalin loses Kolathur seat to former protege VS Babu in stunning upset

Under that ruling, the runner-up or third-placed candidate may seek such verification within seven days of the result. The Election Commission (EC) began the exercise only on July 29, after the 45-day statutory window for filing an election petition had already closed. Verification ended on August 5. The District Election Officer then declared the process successful.

‘Grave irregularities’

Stalin nominated senior advocate NR Elango as his authorised representative. During the delayed check, the DMK side alleged grave irregularities: two of the 14 units stopped working as soon as they were taken up, address tags on carrying cases were blank, seals were affixed on the reverse side, chain of custody was questioned, and in one instance a control unit failed to recognise Stalin’s name.

The party also pointed to mismatches at six polling stations when votes and VVPAT records were compared. After examining part of the sample, the DMK boycotted the remaining verification and said it would go to court.

Why Stalin moved court

In his writ petition, Stalin asked the high court to quash the District Election Officer’s August 5 order, order 100 per cent counting of VVPAT slips in Kolathur; verify all 286 machines, declare Babu’s election void, and declare him the returned candidate.

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal argued that Stalin was not remediless merely because the EC delayed the very verification the Supreme Court had permitted. He said the case flowed from that 2024 Supreme Court judgment, not from an ordinary election challenge, and that the anomalies required investigation.

Also read: A Stalin comeback? How an Assembly 'insult' may see DMK chief back into electoral arena

The EC, represented by senior counsel G Rajagopalan and Dama Seshadri Naidu, said Article 329(b) of the Constitution and Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, allow an election to be questioned only by an election petition.

Entertaining a “cleverly and artfully” drafted writ to set aside a result, the commission warned, would open a Pandora’s box. The Supreme Court has already declined 100 per cent VVPAT counting as a general rule.

What the court said

The bench accepted that maintainability was the threshold issue. In substance, the court held that even if verification was in fact delayed beyond 45 days, the constitutional bar cannot be crossed, and the petition cannot be treated as one filed only for post-election verification procedures.

The court said that a prayer to declare the petitioner himself the winner is not a matter that can be inquired into in a writ petition; a demand to check every voting machine belongs, if at all, in an election petition and that the petitioner remains free to pursue other remedies available in law. Stalin’s request for a full-constituency machine check and for himself to be declared elected was therefore rejected.

Previous battles

This was not Stalin’s only case on the same subject. On August 31, when the main writ was reserved, his counsel withdrew a second writ petition that challenged provisions of the EC’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the 5 per cent EVM check.

The bench pointed out that the petition attacked the 2024 SOP, which had already been replaced by the 2025 SOP under which the Kolathur verification was actually done. The court allowed withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh case against the current SOP.

Also read: From shock to soul-searching: DMK licks its wounds, picks up pieces

Kolathur and Stalin have a long courtroom history. After the 2011 Assembly election, AIADMK’s Saidai S Duraisamy, who lost to Stalin by 2,739 votes, filed an election petition alleging corrupt practices and misuse of official machinery. The Madras High Court dismissed it in 2017. Duraisamy appealed to the Supreme Court. In 2015, the Supreme Court had already given Stalin interim relief on a related evidence question.

In May 2026, after the latest Assembly result, a Supreme Court Bench that had reserved judgment on the old 2011 appeal released the matter for a fresh hearing before a different Bench. That case is Duraisamy’s challenge to Stalin’s 2011 win, not Stalin’s challenge to the 2026 result.

Also read: Stalin eyes solo revival of DMK after crushing defeat; will it help?

Separately, in July 2026, a rival Kolathur candidate’s writ seeking an EC inquiry into alleged non-disclosure of DMK Charitable Trust property in Stalin’s 2026 affidavit was dismissed as withdrawn after the same chief justice-led bench found no prima facie personal interest in the trust assets.