M.K. Stalin Seeks Court Intervention in Kolathur Election Dispute

Chennai, India Aug 25, 2026 ALN: DMK president M.K. Stalin has taken significant legal steps by filing a writ petition in the Madras High Court, which seeks to ensure a thorough counting of the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips from the Kolathur Assembly constituency. In addition to this request, he is asking the court to declare him as the returned candidate, effectively nullifying the election results that favored TVK MLA V.S. Babu. This legal action underscores the complexities surrounding electoral processes in India, particularly concerning the use of electronic voting machines (EVMs) and VVPATs.

The backdrop of this dispute is rooted in the broader context of electoral integrity and transparency in India. Article 329(b) of the Indian Constitution is a critical element in this discussion, as it establishes that no election to Parliament or a State legislature can be contested except through an election petition. However, Stalin argues that his writ petition is maintainable because he is not challenging the election results directly, but rather the administrative and technical processes involved in the verification of EVMs and VVPATs post-election. This distinction is vital as it seeks to address procedural irregularities rather than the legitimacy of the election outcome itself.

Stalin's case is further bolstered by a Supreme Court judgment from 2024 in the case of Association for Democratic Reforms versus Election Commission of India. In this ruling, the Supreme Court allowed candidates who finished in second or third place in elections to request verification of a small percentage (5%) of EVMs, which serves as a measure to enhance electoral transparency. In the 2026 Assembly elections, Stalin finished second with 74,202 votes, while Babu received 82,997 votes, prompting Stalin to apply for the verification of 14 EVMs, representing the 5% threshold of the total 286 EVMs used in Kolathur.

However, the timeline of events has raised concerns for Stalin. Although he filed his application for verification within three days of the election results being declared on May 4, the actual verification process did not commence until July 29, leading him to claim that this three-month delay is contrary to the principles established by the Supreme Court and has caused him significant legal prejudice. The issue of timely verification is crucial in maintaining public confidence in the electoral process, as delays can lead to suspicions about the integrity of the voting system.

During the verification process, several technical issues emerged that have further complicated the situation. Stalin reported that one of the VVPAT units malfunctioned during a mock poll and displayed an error on July 30. Additionally, another VVPAT unit ceased functioning during the verification on July 31. These failures raised questions about the reliability of the equipment used in the election and the overall integrity of the electoral process.

Stalin's representative, senior counsel N.R. Elango, faced additional challenges as he was not provided with any technical reports from Bharat Electronics Limited or other authorities explaining the failures of the VVPAT units. Instead, he was offered the option to select an EVM from a different polling station for verification, which Stalin argues undermines the integrity of the verification process. The discrepancies noted in the verification of EVMs, including issues with the address tags and seals, further compounded the concerns raised by the petitioner.

On August 4, Elango requested verification of EVM sets from six additional polling stations, reflecting ongoing concerns about the electoral process. The situation escalated on August 5 when another significant irregularity was discovered: one ballot unit bearing Stalin's name failed to detect the corresponding control unit. This incident points to potential flaws in the EVMs used during the election, raising alarms about the reliability of electronic voting systems.

Despite these serious allegations and procedural lapses, the District Election Officer declared on August 5 that the verification process had been successfully concluded, a statement that Stalin contests vehemently. He argues that the failure to address these irregularities not only undermines the electoral process but also raises questions about the accountability of election officials.

Another writ petition

In addition to the primary writ petition, M.K. Stalin has filed a second writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions within the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) established by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for checking and verifying the burnt memory or microcontroller in 5% of the EVMs, as mandated by the Supreme Court. He specifically seeks to declare paragraphs 4(a) and 4(c) of the Administrative SOP and paragraph 4.2(p) of the Technical SOP unconstitutional. This legal move indicates his broader concerns about the framework governing the electoral verification process and its adherence to constitutional principles.

The implications of this legal battle are significant, not only for M.K. Stalin and the DMK but also for the integrity of the electoral process in India as a whole. If the court sides with Stalin, it could set a precedent for increased scrutiny and transparency in the verification of electronic voting systems, potentially influencing future elections and the public's trust in the electoral process. Conversely, if the court upholds the current procedures, it may reinforce the status quo, despite the concerns raised by various stakeholders regarding the reliability of EVMs and VVPATs. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for electoral law and the mechanisms that underpin democratic processes in India.