TVK Candidate’s Dindigul Election Challenge Dismissed For Missing Material Facts And Delayed Objections: Madras HC

Nazeer Raja, a defeated candidate in the Dindigul Assembly election, filed an election petition challenging the returned candidate’s election and seeking, among other reliefs, a recount of votes in rounds 22 and 23.

He alleged faults in an EVM during the 13th round, the removal of his counting agents, improper counting through VVPAT slips in rounds 22 and 23, and premature announcement of the result.

The returned candidate applied to strike out paragraphs 6–15 of the petition and, separately, to reject the petition for failure to plead material facts.

The Court considered the rejection application and did not decide the strike-out application.

Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires an election petition to contain a concise statement of material facts; material facts are the basic and primary facts necessary to establish a cause of action, and may require positive averments, including averments of negative facts where relevant.

Alleged violations or non-compliance with the Act or Rules must be cogently pleaded, and election pleadings must not be vague, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The Court referred to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with the applicable High Court rules, as a basis for rejecting an election petition that fails to disclose material facts.

It also compared that power to summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC.

The Court found that the pleaded allegations did not supply the material facts needed to sustain the challenge.

In particular, although the petition alleged irregularities concerning rounds 22 and 23, the petitioner’s post-result representation referred only to those rounds and omitted the alleged 13th-round EVM fault; the Court also noted that no timely objection had been recorded with the Returning Officer and that the petitioner had not signed the result declaration form to record an objection.

It treated these omissions and the timing of the allegations as supporting the view that they were afterthoughts, and concluded that the petition’s allegations did not meet the material-facts requirement.

It closed OA No. 912 of 2026, having found it unnecessary to consider the request to strike out paragraphs 6–15.

No costs were awarded.