Madras High Court refuses to throw out election petition against Udhayanidhi Stalin

The Madras High Court on Friday refused to throw out the election petition challenging DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin’s victory in the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni constituency in Chennai. Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the applications Stalin had filed to have the petition rejected at the threshold, and directed him to file his counter-affidavit within four weeks of the order dated November 13, 2026.

The ruling does not unseat him. It means only that the case brought by an independent candidate, P Milany, moves on to pleadings and trial.

What the court decided

Stalin had filed preliminary applications asking the court to reject the petition and to strike out its pleadings. His main argument, according to reports of the hearing, was that the challenge came after the 45-day limit the law sets for election petitions. Justice Arul Murugan heard both sides, concluded the arguments on October 22 and passed his order on Friday, dismissing the applications.

The judge made clear that his observations were confined to the preliminary applications. The order is therefore not a finding on what Milany alleges. A detailed copy of the order was still awaited late on Friday, and this report rests on accounts of the hearing and of the operative order.

The case is listed as OA 861/2026 in Election Petition 18/2026, titled Udhayanidhi Stalin v P Milany.

The petition

Milany, who also contested the seat and polled 30 votes, filed the election petition on June 18. It takes issue with Stalin’s nomination papers and the affidavit he filed with them. According to reports, the petition alleges false declarations in the affidavit and says documents obtained from the District Election Officer point to a corrupt practice. Milany has relied on a Supreme Court judgment holding that a false declaration about a candidate’s or spouse’s assets can amount to a corrupt practice whatever its effect on the result. None of these allegations has been tested in court yet, and Stalin has not been found to have done anything wrong.

Stalin won the seat on May 4, 2026, polling 62,992 votes against 55,852 for D Selvam of the TVK, a margin of 7,140 votes.

How the petition reached trial

1. May 4, 2026Udhayanidhi Stalin declared elected from Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni
2. Early June 2026A Division Bench orders election records supplied to Milany
3. June 18, 2026Milany files the election petition
4. October 22, 2026Arguments on Stalin's applications conclude
5. November 13, 2026Justice Arul Murugan dismisses the applications

How we got here

The fight began over paperwork. Milany first went to court because the Election Commission would give certified copies of the winner’s nomination papers only after 45 days from the declaration of results. In early June, a Division Bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan held that the 45-day limit cannot apply to every request, and told the District Election Officer to issue the certified copies within two weeks. The court observed that filing an election petition is a statutory right. The petition followed on June 18.

Separately, on September 8, Milany filed a complaint before a Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, which punishes false information in an election affidavit. The complaint said it had been left pending without a number. The High Court closed that plea after the complaint was numbered and a notice before cognisance was issued.

This is not the first time the Madras High Court has dealt with disputes over the Tamil Nadu election. Earlier it upheld the Speaker’s acceptance of AIADMK MLAs’ resignations and heard a petition over children in election reels.

Reactions

No statement from Stalin or the DMK had been reported by late Friday night, and Milany had not commented on the order. The defence, which argued the petition was time-barred, can still press that point and other objections in its reply and at trial, although the court has now declined to settle them at the start.

Why it matters

An election petition is the only route in law to challenge a result after the votes are counted, and a successful one can lead to the election being declared void. Rejecting such a petition at the threshold is allowed only when it plainly discloses no cause of action or is barred by law. By refusing, the High Court has held that Milany’s petition clears that bar, so Stalin, who leads the DMK in the Assembly, will have to answer it on the merits. Election petitions of this kind are usually long matters, with issues framed and evidence recorded.

What happens next

Stalin must file his counter-affidavit within four weeks, which falls around December 11. The court is expected to fix the next date when the reply comes in; none was reported on Friday. Once the detailed order is uploaded, the reasoning on the 45-day question will show how the court read the limit.