Madras High Court· 03 September 2026

Is a writ petition barred by Article 329(b) of the Constitution where the reliefs claimed seek to declare the returned candidate's election void?

M.K.Stalin v. The Election Commission of India & Ors.

WP.34892/2026 · 2026:MHC:3609 · W.P.No.34892 of 2026
Coram: Justice G.Arul Murugan · Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Art.329(b) Constitution of India 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

A writ petition is barred by Article 329(b) of the Constitution where the reliefs claimed seek to declare the returned candidate's election void.

Yes. A writ petition is barred by Article 329(b) of the Constitution where the reliefs claimed seek to declare the returned candidate's election void. The word “election” in Article 329(b) is used in a wide sense, so as to connote the entire process which culminates in a candidate being declared elected. Where the petitioner asks the court to declare the return void and to declare himself elected in place of the returned candidate, the prayer goes to the very root of the election. A self-serving pleading that the petition does not “call in question” the election cannot determine the true nature of the proceeding, which has to be gathered from the reliefs actually claimed, read as a whole. (¶8, 9, 10)

Headnote

Constitution of India — Art.329(b) — Art.226 — Representation of the People Act, 1951 — ss.80, 97, 100 — Election dispute — Maintainability of writ petition — Constitution of India — Art.329(b) — Election — True character gathered from the reliefs claimed — Held: A writ petition is barred by Article 329(b) where the reliefs claimed seek a declaration that the returned candidate's election is void. The true character of the proceeding is gathered from the reliefs actually claimed, not from the drafting. (¶9, 10) Representation of the People Act, 1951 — s.100(1)(d) — Malfunctioning machines — Triable only on evidence — Held further: Grounds of malfunctioning VVPAT units, breach of Rule 49-T and non-detection of a ballot unit fall within Section 100 of the Act, and are triable only on evidence that the result was materially affected. (¶12) Constitution of India — Art.226 — Post-result verification — Additional safeguard, not in substitution — Held further: The post-result checking and verification mechanism is an additional safeguard and not in substitution of the remedy of an election petition; an order passed under it cannot be assailed under Article 226. Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable. (¶15, 18)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 8It is well settled that the word “election” occurring in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India is used in a wide sense, so as to connote the entire process which culminates in a candidate being declared elected, commencing with the notification and ending with the declaration of the result. It is equally well settled that where the relief sought would have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings, or where it seeks, directly or indirectly, an adjudication upon the validity of the declared result, resort to Article 226 of the Constitution of India is impermissible, and the grievance, however genuine, must await the institution of an election petition, the sole remedy contemplated by the Constitution and the Act for that purpose.

Paragraph 9The present writ petition cannot, in our opinion, be said to be confined to the post-result verification process alone. While the body of the affidavit is, no doubt, structured around the alleged infirmities in the checking and verification exercise, the reliefs actually prayed for travel far beyond that exercise. The petitioner does not merely seek a fresh or more thorough verification, he seeks a declaration that the election of the fourth respondent, the returned candidate, is void, and a further declaration that he himself be declared the duly elected candidate for No.13, Kolathur Assembly Constituency. These are reliefs that go to the very root of the election and its result. No matter how the pleadings are structured, a prayer of this description is, in substance, nothing but a challenge to the correctness of the election and squarely attracts the bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India.

Paragraph 10The submission of Mr.Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel, that the writ petition bears the character of artful drafting is not without force. Paragraph 38(f) of the affidavit itself anticipates and seeks to pre-empt the very objection now under consideration, by asserting that the challenge does not “call in question” the election. Such a self-serving characterisation cannot determine the true nature of the proceeding, which has to be gathered from the reliefs actually claimed, read as a whole. When a petitioner asks this court to declare a duly notified return void, and to declare himself elected in place of the returned candidate, he is doing precisely what Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India forbids him from doing outside the framework of an election petition.

Acts & Sections

Art.329(b) Constitution of IndiaArt.226 Constitution of Indias.80 Representation of the People Act, 1951s.100 Representation of the People Act, 1951s.97 Representation of the People Act, 1951

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M.K.Stalin v. The Election Commission of India & Ors. — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can an order passed under the post-result checking and verification mechanism be assailed under Article 226 in derogation of the election petition remedy?Does the lapse of the forty-five day period for filing an election petition enlarge the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections