Madras HC Rejects Udhayanidhi Stalin’s Bid To End Chepauk Election Challenge Over Alleged Nomination Defects And Asset Omissions

P. Milany, an independent candidate in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election from Chepauk, filed an election petition challenging Udhayanidhi Stalin’s election under Sections 100(1)(c), 100(1)(d)(i) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (“RP Act”).

He alleged improper rejection of another candidate’s nomination, improper acceptance of the returned candidate’s nomination, and suppression of assets and liabilities in the returned candidate’s Form-26 affidavit.

The returned candidate applied to strike out paragraphs 6–23 under Order VI Rule 16 CPC and to reject the election petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending, among other things, that it was filed out of time, lacked material facts, and was defective for non-joinder of the candidate whose nomination was allegedly rejected.

The election was declared on 4 May 2026, and the petition was presented on 18 June 2026.

Section 81(1) of the RP Act requires an election petition to be presented within 45 days from the date of election, and Section 86(1) requires dismissal for non-compliance with Section 81, Section 82 or Section 117.

Under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the first day is excluded when computing a period expressed to run “from” a specified date; the Supreme Court applied that rule to Section 81(1) in Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v. Dinanath Sharma.

Sections 82–84 of the RP Act govern necessary parties and available relief, while Section 83(1)(a) requires a concise statement of material facts.

Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court considers the election petition as a whole and, at most, its accompanying documents; the defence is not considered at that stage.

Order VI Rule 16 CPC permits striking out pleadings that fall within its specified grounds, including unnecessary, vexatious or abusive matter.

The court also referred to Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, under which a guarantor’s liability is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor.

Applying Tarun Prasad Chatterjee, the Court excluded 4 May 2026, calculated the 45-day period from 5 May to 18 June 2026, and held that the petition was timely.

It found Dilip Kumar need not be joined because the petitioner sought only to have the returned candidate’s election declared void, sought no declaration under Section 84 that another candidate was duly elected, and alleged no corrupt practice against Dilip Kumar.

The petition pleaded particulars of the rejected nomination, the alleged defect in the accepted nomination, and the asserted asset and liability omissions, supported by identified records and documents.

The returned candidate’s explanations—including that certain values included buildings, that a lessee constructed a building, and that liabilities or financial figures did not require disclosure—raised disputed factual or legal questions for trial.

At the rejection stage, those defences could not displace the petition’s pleaded facts; the Court therefore treated the allegations as triable rather than deciding their merits.

It dismissed both applications—O.A. No. 860 of 2026 under Order VI Rule 16 CPC and O.A. No. 861 of 2026 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC—without expressing any opinion on the merits of the election petition.

The returned candidate was directed to file his reply statement within four weeks, and the election petition was listed for 11 December 2026.