Madras HC Orders Election Papers for Chepauk Candidate Within Two Weeks, Rejects ECI's 45-Day Withholding Stand
A Division Bench held that withholding election documents until the limitation period for an election petition expires would render the statutory right to approach the court illusory.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justice G. R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, on 8 June 2026 allowed a writ petition filed by P. Milany, an unsuccessful candidate from the Chepauk Thiruvallikeni Assembly Constituency in the recently concluded Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly General Election. The bench directed the District Election Officer, Greater Chennai Corporation, to issue certified copies of the election papers sought by Milany within two weeks of the order being uploaded to the court's website. The Election Commission of India had argued that its own circular required a 45-day waiting period after declaration of results before any election records could be furnished. The bench rejected that position, holding that the circular could not override Rule 93 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, and that reading the 45-day bar into all categories of documents would defeat the statutory right to file an election petition within the very same 45-day window.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Milany contested the Chepauk Thiruvallikeni seat and lost. Even before polling, he had made representations on 20 April 2026 and 27 April 2026 seeking certified copies of objections raised during scrutiny of nomination papers on 7 April 2026, the reasoned decisions of the Returning Officer on those objections, Form 7A (list of contesting candidates), and Form 26 affidavits of six named candidates including Udhayanidhi Stalin of the DMK.
The Returning Officer replied that objections had been displayed on the notice board at the constituency office, that Form 7A was available on the ECI website, and that Form 26 affidavits could be downloaded from affidavit.eci.gov.in. No certified copies were furnished.
After results were declared, Milany sent a fresh representation on 15 May 2026 to the second respondent, the District Election Officer, stating that he intended to file an election petition and required eight categories of documents. These included the accepted and rejected nomination papers of returned candidate S. Udhayanidhi along with their check lists, all orders of the Returning Officer rejecting fifteen nominations during scrutiny on 7 April 2026, all objections received for those nominations, orders accepting nominations after overruling objections, Form 7A, a certified extract from the ECI Handbook for Returning Officers on grounds for rejection of nomination papers, and the English version of the Form 26 affidavit format. He followed up in person on 20 May 2026. Neither representation received a favourable response, prompting the writ petition.
The ECI's 45-Day Circular and the Statutory Conflict
When the matter was first listed on 27 May 2026, Standing Counsel Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan sought time to obtain instructions. The bench listed it on 29 May 2026 given the election-related urgency.
Before the bench, Mr. Rajagopalan relied on Circular No. 4/2024/SDR/Vol.II dated 6 September 2024 issued by the Principal Secretary of the Election Commission of India. He submitted that under that circular, election records would be issued only after 45 days from the date of declaration of results and only on payment of the prescribed fee. Since that 45-day period had not yet expired, he argued the petitioner had no cause of action and sought dismissal of the writ petition.
The bench examined Rule 93 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. Rule 93(1) imposes a strict bar on opening or producing certain sealed packets — unused ballot papers, used ballot papers, counterfoils, marked copies of the electoral roll, Form 17-A registers, and declarations by electors — except under a court order. Rule 93(2) provides that all other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection and copies shall be furnished on application. Rule 93(3) specifies the fee for copies of returns under Rule 64 and Rule 84(1)(b).
The bench found that none of the eight categories of documents sought by Milany fell within Rule 93(1)(a) to Rule 93(1)(e). They were therefore squarely within Rule 93(2), which mandates disclosure and furnishing of copies on application.
The bench also examined the circular itself. Paragraph 6 of the circular expressly states that its instructions are subject to Rule 93. Paragraph 6(ix) makes clear that a candidate of the constituency concerned is entitled to any statutory documents other than those covered under Rule 93(1). The 45-day waiting period, the bench found, appears in paragraph 6(i) and does not appear in paragraphs 6(iii), 6(iv), 6(vi), 6(vii), and 6(ix). Reading the 45-day restriction across all categories, the bench held, would defeat the purpose of the circular itself.
Why the Bench Rejected the ECI's Position
The bench set out the legal framework governing election petitions at some length, explaining why the document-withholding position was untenable in practice.
Under Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, an election petition challenging a State Legislative Assembly result must be presented to the High Court within 45 days. The limitation period runs from the date on which the Returning Officer declares the candidate elected, as defined under Section 67-A of the Act. Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 — including Section 5, which allows condonation of delay — do not apply to election petitions because the 1951 Act is a self-contained complete code. Under Section 86(1), the court sitting as an Election Tribunal is bound to dismiss any petition filed beyond 45 days. There is no discretionary or equitable power to extend that period.
The pleading requirements under Section 83(1) of the 1951 Act are equally strict. An election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts. If a material fact is omitted, the petition risks rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where corrupt practices are alleged, full particulars including names, dates, and places must be set out. The petition must be signed and verified in the manner prescribed under the Code. The Supreme Court, the bench noted, has drawn a distinction between material facts — which form the foundation of the case and cannot be expanded by amendment — and material particulars, which are finer details that can be amended. Failure to file a properly sworn affidavit under the proviso to Section 83(1) has been held to be a fatal defect warranting summary dismissal.
Against this backdrop, the bench reasoned that if the Election Commission were to retain all documents until the 45-day limitation period expired and only then furnish them, the petitioner's right to move the court would be rendered “negatory.” A candidate who cannot access the election papers in time cannot plead the material facts required by Section 83, and a petition filed without those materials runs the risk of immediate dismissal at the threshold.
The bench stated that the purpose of law is to give a remedy to a grievance expressed by the litigant. Refusing to part with documents that Rule 93(2) requires to be disclosed, until the limitation period is over, violates the right to approach the court. The ECI's circular, properly read, does not support the position Mr. Rajagopalan advanced, and even if it did, it could not override the statutory rule.
Documents Partly Furnished Before Pronouncement
Just before the bench pronounced its order on 8 June 2026, Standing Counsel filed a memo stating that the ECI had already communicated to the petitioner by e-mail dated 6 June 2026 the following: certified copy of the accepted nomination papers of S. Udhayanidhi (DMK candidate), certified copy of his rejected nomination papers, certified copies of Form 7A, and the English version of the Form 26 affidavit. The memo also stated that the remaining copies had been despatched to the petitioner on 8 June 2026 itself.
Standing Counsel further assured the court that a typed set of papers containing all documents sought by the petitioner's counsel would be handed over to Mr. Gopinath, counsel for the petitioner, by the end of the following day. The bench recorded that statement.
Order
The Division Bench allowed WP No. 20680 of 2026. The second respondent, the District Election Officer/Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, was directed to issue certified copies of all election papers sought by the petitioner in his representations dated 15 May 2026 and 20 May 2026 within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order onto the court's website. No costs were awarded.