Madras High Court Dismisses Udhayanidhi Stalin Plea to Reject Election Petition
The Madras High Court on Friday dismissed an application filed by Tamil Nadu Leader of Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin seeking to reject an election petition challenging his 2026 Assembly election victory. Justice G Arul Murugan refused to discard the petition brought by independent candidate P. Milany of Theni, who seeks to nullify Stalin's win from the Chepauk-Triplicane constituency in Chennai. The judge ordered the former Deputy Chief Minister to submit a formal counter-affidavit within a four-week timeframe, according to Live Law. The High Court subsequently adjourned further proceedings in the matter to December 11, leaving the detailed judicial order awaited.
During the High Court hearings, Udhayanidhi Stalin contended that the election petition was barred by statutory limitation because it was filed past the mandatory 45-day deadline. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader argued that the procedural timeframe established under the Representation of the People Act precluded the court from entertaining the challenge. However, petitioner Milany countered that the election plea had been submitted well within the prescribed time window and was accepted by the High Court Registry. Milany requested that the court proceed with a full evidentiary trial on the merits of the electoral challenge.
In the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, Udhayanidhi Stalin retained the Chepauk-Triplicane seat by securing 62,992 votes. His nearest electoral challenger, D. Selvam of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, finished second with 55,852 votes, while Milany received 30 votes as an independent candidate. According to Live Law, Milany had previously petitioned the court for directives instructing the Election Commission of India to furnish Stalin's electoral records. Milany alleged that documents received from the District Election Officer demonstrated false asset declarations in the election affidavit, constituting corrupt practice under Supreme Court precedent. At the Madras High Court, 12 election petitions were taken on file after the 2011 Assembly elections, 23 after the 2016 Assembly polls, and 13 were taken up for hearing in 2021, according to CDJ Law Journal.
The court had previously noted while handling the document request that filing an election petition constitutes a statutory right for contesting candidates. Separately from the High Court challenge, Milany lodged a complaint on September 8, 2026, before the Metropolitan Magistrate invoking Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act. Milany then approached the High Court seeking directions to the Magistrate, arguing that the complaint had been kept pending without being numbered and that Stalin was a highly influential person with both men and money power. The court closed that plea after noting that the complaint had since been numbered and a pre-cognisance notice issued, according to Live Law. The upcoming December 11 hearing will address Stalin's formal counter-affidavit and establish subsequent procedural steps for the electoral trial. Any order passed on an application to reject an election petition can be appealed to the Supreme Court, while trial requires elected representatives and election officials to depose on oath and face cross-examination, according to CDJ Law Journal.