Madras High Court Dismisses Election Petition Against DMK Whip E.V. Velu

Chennai, September 16, 2026

The Madras High Court has decisively rejected an election petition that sought to challenge the victory of E.V. Velu, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) whip and a former Minister, from the Tiruvannamalai Assembly constituency. The ruling, delivered on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, found no sufficient grounds to proceed with the legal challenge against Velu’s election.

Information was available with The Chenab Times that the petition was filed by Arul Arumugam, the candidate representing the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) in the Tiruvannamalai constituency. Arumugam had approached the High Court aiming to contest the results of the recent Assembly elections, in which E.V. Velu was declared the winner. Velu had secured a victory margin of 2,455 votes in the said elections.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy presided over the case and considered applications filed by E.V. Velu, who had sought the dismissal of the election petition at a preliminary stage. Velu’s counsel argued that the petition lacked valid grounds and sufficient material facts as mandated by the Representation of the People Act. Specifically, the DMK leader contended that the allegations concerning nomination scrutiny, polling agents, postal ballots, counting processes, and Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trails (VVPATs) were vague and unsupported by necessary evidence. Velu’s arguments highlighted that the petition failed to specify the particular EVMs allegedly modified or replaced, the dates of such interventions, or the statutory provisions that were purportedly violated.

In his ruling, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy concurred with Velu’s submissions, finding that the election petition did not present adequate grounds for the court to proceed further. The judge observed that the petition failed to disclose a complete cause of action, a key requirement for electoral challenges. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition filed by Arul Arumugam, thereby bringing the legal challenge to E.V. Velu’s election from Tiruvannamalai to an end on the grounds presented.

The dismissal of this petition follows a pattern of similar rejections for election challenges. In a related development, the Madras High Court also rejected an election petition challenging the victory of Tamil Nadu minister K.A. Sengottaiyan from the Gobichettipalayam constituency. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, who heard Sengottaiyan’s case, also found that the petition failed to disclose sufficient material facts to sustain the challenge. The grounds for challenging Sengottaiyan’s election reportedly revolved around an allegation concerning the notary who attested his election affidavit, who was claimed to lack a valid certificate of practice at the time of attestation. Justice Ilanthiraiyan, however, noted that even if the allegation were true, it would not be enough to invalidate an election unless the petitioner could demonstrate how the alleged defect materially affected the election result. The court cited that a mere allegation of non-compliance, without specific averments and a clear link to an impact on the election outcome, does not constitute a complete cause of action for declaring an election void.

This judicial stance underscores the high threshold required to prove electoral malpractice or procedural defects sufficient to overturn election results. Both E.V. Velu and K.A. Sengottaiyan were represented by senior legal teams during these proceedings. The outcomes reinforce the principle that election petitions must be supported by concrete facts and demonstrable evidence, rather than vague accusations, to be considered by the courts.

E.V. Velu, a prominent leader within the DMK, has served as a Minister in various capacities in the Tamil Nadu government. His victory in the Tiruvannamalai constituency has been a consistent feature in state Assembly elections, and this legal challenge represents an attempt by a political rival to question his electoral success. The Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, a relatively new political entity, has been actively participating in Tamil Nadu’s electoral landscape. The dismissal of their candidate’s petition indicates a setback for the party in its efforts to challenge established electoral outcomes.

The Representation of the People Act, 1951, governs election petitions in India. It outlines the grounds on which an election can be challenged, including corrupt practices by the returned candidate or any person acting with the candidate’s consent, or any other electoral offence. However, the Act also specifies that a petition must contain a concise statement of material facts and the full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges. Failure to provide these essential elements often leads to the petition being dismissed at the initial stage, as seen in these recent High Court rulings.

The Madras High Court’s consistent application of these legal principles ensures that the electoral process is upheld while simultaneously preventing frivolous challenges that could undermine the mandate of elected representatives. The court’s decisions in these cases emphasize the necessity for petitioners to meticulously prepare their cases, providing substantive evidence and clear legal arguments to substantiate any claims of electoral impropriety. Without such rigor, election petitions are likely to face dismissal, reinforcing the finality of election results based on established legal frameworks.

This development reaffirms E.V. Velu’s position as the elected representative for Tiruvannamalai. The legal proceedings, though ultimately unsuccessful for the petitioner, highlight the checks and balances inherent in India’s democratic system, where electoral outcomes can be scrutinized through judicial review, provided sufficient grounds and evidence are presented.

---

---

Follow us on

---

(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)