CHENNAI: The First Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, has reserved its orders on a high-stakes writ petition filed by DMK president M.K. Stalin. The petition seeks a directive for the 100% counting of VVPAT slips in the Kolathur Assembly constituency to potentially overturn the election of TVK MLA V.S. Babu.

Representing the former Chief Minister, senior counsel Kapil Sibal argued that the case is rooted in a 2024 Supreme Court precedent (Association for Democratic Reforms vs. ECI), which allows candidates to request verification of microcontroller memory in 5% of EVMs. Sibal highlighted that while Mr. Stalin applied for this verification within three days of the May 4, 2026 results, the Election Commission of India (ECI) only commenced the process on July 29, 2026.

BozokMedia analysis shows that this case tests the boundaries of judicial intervention in electoral processes. If the court accepts that ECI's administrative delay justifies a writ petition over a statutory election petition, it could fundamentally alter how election disputes are litigated in India.

The petitioner's counsel raised a red flag regarding technical failures, claiming that during the verification of 14 EVM sets, one unit failed to identify the petitioner's name. Sibal questioned the ECI's explanation for such a critical anomaly, asserting that the petitioner should not be left remediless due to delays caused by the commission itself.

"The tension here lies between the strict statutory timeline of the Representation of the People Act and the equitable principle that a party should not suffer due to the opponent's delay."

Conversely, the ECI's legal team, led by senior counsel G. Rajagopal and Dama Seshadri Naidu, contended that the petition is legally unsustainable. They cited Article 329(b) of the Constitution and Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which mandate that election results can only be challenged via an election petition, not a writ petition. The ECI warned that entertaining such a plea would open a "Pandora's box" of litigation across the country.

In a related development, Mr. Stalin withdrew another petition challenging the ECI's Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for EVM verification. The court noted that the challenge was directed at the 2024 SOP, which had already been superseded by the 2025 guidelines used for the Kolathur verification.

Did You Know?: Under the Representation of the People Act, an election petition must typically be filed within 45 days of the result declaration.

1. What is M.K. Stalin demanding from the court?
He is seeking 100% VVPAT verification and to be declared the winner of the Kolathur seat.

2. Why does the ECI oppose the writ petition?
The ECI argues that by law, election disputes must be settled through election petitions, not through the High Court's writ jurisdiction.