Katpadi Election Petition Dismissed: Madras HC Finds No Material Facts and Expired Assembly Term Fatal

The Madras High Court dismissed a 2021 assembly election petition against Duraimurugan for lack of material facts and because the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly term expired before the petition could be decided.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, sitting singly at the Madras High Court, dismissed an election petition filed by V. Ramu, an AIADMK candidate who narrowly lost the No. 40 Katpadi Assembly Constituency seat in the Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections of 2021. The petition challenged the election of DMK candidate Duraimurugan, who won by a margin of 746 votes. The court found that the petition was fatally deficient in material facts as required by Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and independently held that the petition had become infructuous because the assembly term expired in May 2026 and fresh elections to the 17th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly were held on 23 April 2026 — in which both the petitioner and the first respondent contested and lost.

The Dispute Before the Court

The Tamil Nadu Assembly election in No. 40 Katpadi Constituency was held on 6 April 2021. Counting of EVM votes and postal ballots took place on 2 May 2021. Duraimurugan secured 85,140 votes against V. Ramu's 84,394 votes, out of 1,86,763 polled votes in a constituency of 2,48,567 registered voters. The Returning Officer declared Duraimurugan elected by a margin of 746 votes.

V. Ramu filed E.L.P. No. 4 of 2021 under Sections 80, 80A, 81, 82, 83, 84, 98(b)(c) read with Sections 100, 100(1)(d)(iii), 100(1)(d)(iv) and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. He sought four reliefs: a declaration that Duraimurugan's election was void; re-verification and recount of postal ballot votes; a recount of EVMs from polling station Nos. 4, 110A(W), 215A(W), 219, and 180M; and a declaration that he himself was the returned candidate.

The petition was not grounded on any corrupt practice by Duraimurugan or his agents. The entire challenge was directed at the Returning Officer's conduct during the counting process.

Petitioner's Allegations on Counting

Ramu's counsel argued that the counting, which ran from 8.00 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 2 May 2021, was conducted in violation of Rule 54-A, Rule 55-C, Rule 56-C, and Rule 66-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The specific grievances were:

First, that five EVMs — in polling station Nos. 4, 15A(W), 19M, 110A(W), and 180M — were not counted. The petitioner said he was personally present in the counting hall and raised objections, but the Returning Officer refused to accept any written complaint.

Second, that postal ballots were not verified in accordance with Rule 54-A because the postal ballot covers did not carry the seal of a gazetted officer. The petitioner contended those ballots should have been declared void.

On the EVM count, the petitioner described the vote tally round by round: at the end of round 25, he led by 346 votes (82,793 to 82,447). In round 26, 1,804 votes were counted, of which he secured 882 and Duraimurugan secured 796. However, the EVM in polling station No. 110A(W) was not counted in round 26. Of 3,349 postal votes, 37 were NOTA; Ramu secured 719 postal votes and Duraimurugan secured 1,897, resulting in Duraimurugan's eventual 746-vote lead.

Ramu contended that the Returning Officer had no authority to skip the EVM for polling station No. 110A(W) and that this omission materially affected the election result.

On infructuousness, Ramu's counsel argued that even after the assembly term expired, the petition survived because Duraimurugan, having been a returned MLA, continued to enjoy benefits attached to that status, and such benefits from a wrongful election ought not go unchallenged.

Returning Officer's Explanation and First Respondent's Position

The Returning Officer's position, drawn from records before the court, explained the non-counting of the EVM in polling station No. 110A(W). On polling day, after voting ended, the polling officer found a mismatch when verifying total votes in Form 17-A against votes cast: the EVM reflected 564 votes though only 514 votes were actually polled, a discrepancy of 50 votes. The investigation found that mock poll votes conducted before actual polling began had not been deleted from the EVM and were recorded as extra votes in Form 17-C.

When the EVM was taken up in round 11 of counting, it could not be counted due to this mismatch. After all other EVMs and postal votes were counted, the winning margin stood at 764 votes. Since the total valid votes in polling station No. 110A(W) were only 514 (after deducting the 50 mock poll votes), the Election Commission of India's instructions dated 21 May 2019 applied: where the winning margin exceeds the total votes polled in a polling station, the results are declared without counting that station's EVM. The Returning Officer acted accordingly.

Duraimurugan's counsel, Mr. Richardson Wilson, also pointed out that Ramu lodged no complaint on the day of counting itself. His only formal representation was sent by registered post on 15 May 2021 — 13 days after the result was declared — and no acknowledgment of receipt was produced before the court.

On the question of infructuousness, the first respondent's counsel submitted that since the petition was filed on grounds other than corrupt practice, it could not survive the expiry of the assembly term. Both parties had since contested and lost in the fresh elections to the 17th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly held on 23 April 2026.

How the Court Reasoned on Material Facts

On Issue No. 1 — whether the petition was liable to rejection for want of material facts — Justice Ilanthiraiyan found the pleadings fatally deficient under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act, which requires a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies.

The court noted that on the postal ballot allegation, the petition did not state how many postal votes lacked the gazetted officer's seal, which specific votes were in question, or what the total number of votes liable to rejection was. The petitioner also failed to produce any written complaint filed during counting, and there was no acknowledgment that any complaint was submitted on 15 May 2021.

On the EVM allegation, the court found from the final result sheet (Form 20) that EVMs in polling station Nos. 4, 15A(W), 19M, and 180M were in fact counted in rounds 2 and 18. Only polling station No. 110A(W) was not counted, and the court accepted the Returning Officer's explanation: the ECI instructions of 21 May 2019 expressly permit non-counting of an EVM where the winning margin exceeds the total votes polled in that station.

The court extracted Section 83 of the RP Act and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in C.P. John v. Babu M. Palissery & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 547 for the principle that an election petition must enable the returned candidate to understand and defend the case against him without speculation. The judgment in that case held that “the omission of even a single material fact shall lead to an incomplete cause of action.”

The court further applied the principle from Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi (AIR 1986 SC 1253) and Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Shri Rajiv Gandhi (AIR 1987 SC 1577), both cited in the Madras High Court's own earlier decision in E.L.P. No. 17 of 2016 (B. Ramkumar Adityan v. Anitha R. Radhakrishnan & Ors., decided 24 June 2022): that an election petition without material facts relating to the grounds alleged is not an election petition at all, and that vague, general allegations without particulars deprive the court of a triable issue.

The court found that the petition also failed to state what role, if any, the returned candidate Duraimurugan had in the alleged counting irregularities. The allegations were directed entirely at the Returning Officer, with no nexus drawn to the candidate. Issue No. 1 was answered in favour of the first respondent.

How the Court Reasoned on Infructuousness

On Issue No. 2 — whether the petition had become infructuous — the court recorded that the term of the 2021 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly expired in May 2026. The petition was not filed on the ground of corrupt practice. In these circumstances, the court held that the non-corrupt-practice grounds were rendered infructuous by the expiry of the assembly term.

The court applied the Supreme Court's decision in Mundrika Singh Yadav v. Shiv Bachan Yadav & Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 211, which dismissed an election petition as infructuous after the Bihar Legislative Assembly's term expired and fresh elections were held, on the ground that “no relief can be allowed to the appellant in this appeal even if this appeal is allowed.”

The court also relied on P.H. Pandian v. P. Veldurai and Others (2013) 4 SCC 685, where the Supreme Court held that once the charge of corrupt practice fails, the rest of an appeal is rendered infructuous because fresh elections have taken place and the old assembly is no longer in existence.

Applying these principles to the facts: the 16th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly had ceased to exist, the 17th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election was held on 23 April 2026, and both V. Ramu and Duraimurugan contested and lost in the Katpadi constituency in that election. The court held that nothing survived in the petition. Issue No. 2 was answered in favour of the first respondent.

Outcome

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, by order dated 7 July 2026, dismissed the election petition E.L.P. No. 4 of 2021 as infructuous. O.A. No. 742 of 2021 (the first respondent's application to reject the election petition) was allowed. O.A. No. 741 of 2021 (application to strike off paragraphs 11 to 34 of the petition) was closed as a consequence. The connected applications O.A. No. 675 of 2021 and O.A. No. 751 of 2023 were also closed. No order as to costs was made.