the news now

The world's news, cross-checked among reputable sources.

This is a new development in a story we have covered before · earlier coverage

Madras High Court dismisses MK Stalin's plea challenging Kolathur election result

2 sources · India

Who reported this

  • Scroll.in India · Left · Scroll Media Inc, reader-funded
  • Hindustan Times India · Centre-right · HT Media (KK Birla group)

What the colours mean

  • Left
  • Centre-left
  • Centre
  • Centre-right
  • Right
  • A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.

Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.

Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.

The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.

Every source for this story reports from India.

The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam president MK Stalin, which sought to challenge the victory of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam MLA VS Babu in the Kolathur assembly constituency. A bench consisting of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan ruled that the plea was not maintainable. Stalin had lost the seat by 8,795 votes, securing 74,202 votes against Babu's 82,997.

Stalin's petition requested the court to order the counting of 100 percent of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail slips and the verification of electronic voting machines. His legal team, led by senior counsel Kapil Sibal, argued that the request was based on a 2024 Supreme Court judgment allowing runners up to request verification of the burnt memory in 5 percent of EVMs. Stalin alleged that serious anomalies occurred during the verification of 14 machines, including claims that some units failed to recognize his name or stopped working immediately upon verification. He further contended that the Election Commission of India delayed the verification process, which prevented him from filing a standard election petition within the prescribed 45 day window.

The Election Commission of India opposed the plea, stating that under Article 329(b) of the Constitution and Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, election results can only be challenged through an election petition. The commission described the writ petition as cleverly and artfully drafted and warned that entertaining it would open a pandora's box.

How each side framed it

Left
The report provides more detailed context on the technical functions of VVPATs and burnt memory while emphasizing Stalin's specific allegations of procedural irregularities.
Centre-right
The report focuses heavily on the legal arguments regarding the maintainability of the petition and the Election Commission's warnings about legal precedents.

Sources

100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.