Madras HC to Rule on MK Stalin's Plea for 100% VVPAT Count in Kolathur

The Madras High Court is scheduled to deliver its verdict on September 3 on a petition filed by DMK president MK Stalin seeking a 100 per cent count of VVPAT slips in the Kolathur assembly constituency. Stalin, who was defeated in Kolathur by TVK candidate VS Babu in the state elections earlier this year, has also requested that the court invalidate Babu's election and declare him elected instead.

In the election results declared on May 4, Babu secured 82,997 votes to defeat Stalin, who polled 74,202 votes, resulting in a margin of 8,795 votes. Stalin had represented Kolathur across three consecutive terms since the constituency was created in 2011 before placing second in the latest contest.

The legal dispute arose from the post-election electronic voting machine verification process. Following the declaration of results, Stalin submitted an application on May 7 requesting verification of 14 EVM sets, representing 5 per cent of the 286 sets used across Kolathur. However, the Election Commission did not commence the verification exercise until July 29, concluding it on August 5.

Stalin's petition contends that the delay by election authorities prejudiced his legal rights by preventing him from pursuing election remedies within the standard statutory timeframe. The petition also highlights several technical and procedural anomalies observed during the verification exercise. According to the plea, a VVPAT unit halted with an error message during a mock poll, a Control Unit failed to detect a Ballot Unit bearing Stalin's name, and certain EVM components carried incomplete address tags. Citing these issues, Stalin requested a full verification of all EVMs and a complete count of all VVPAT paper slips.

The Election Commission opposed the writ petition, arguing that it is not maintainable under the law. Counsel for the commission submitted that under the Representation of the People Act, an election outcome can be challenged only through a formal election petition filed within the prescribed limitation period, a route Stalin did not complete in time.

Stalin's counsel argued that the initial application for verification was submitted well within the permitted window, and the delay in conducting the exercise was entirely attributable to election officials. Counsel maintained that the petitioner should not be deprived of judicial remedies due to administrative delays beyond his control. The High Court reserved its orders on August 31 after hearing both parties.