The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the election of revenue minister K A Sengottaiyan from Tamil Nadu’s Gobichettipalayam constituency, ruling that the petition did not present sufficient material facts to warrant a trial.
Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan passed the order on Tuesday while rejecting the election petition filed by AIADMK candidate V B Prabhu, who had contested the 2026 Assembly election from the constituency. Prabhu had alleged that Sengottaiyan’s nomination papers were not properly filed and that the notary who attested them did not hold a valid licence.
The court held that the petition did not establish the facts needed to show a statutory violation or demonstrate how the alleged irregularity had materially affected the election result. It said that a “mere allegation” that the affidavit in Form No 26 was attested by a notary whose certificate of practice was allegedly not subsisting on the date of attestation could not, by itself, constitute a complete cause of action under the Representation of the People Act.
According to the court, the petition also lacked the necessary pleadings linking the alleged notarial issue to the validity of the election outcome. The absence of these basic facts was not merely a deficiency in particulars, the court said, but went to the root of the cause of action pleaded in the election petition.
The ruling leaves Sengottaiyan’s Gobichettipalayam victory undisturbed. He secured 82,612 votes and won by a margin of 16,620 votes. DMK candidate N Nallasivam received 65,992 votes, while Prabhu secured 56,232 votes.
Election petitions are governed by statutory requirements that require challengers to set out the factual basis of the alleged violation and its relevance to the result. In this case, the High Court found that the petition did not meet that threshold and therefore did not require the election dispute to proceed to trial.
The court’s order specifically addressed the distinction between raising an allegation and presenting a legally complete election challenge. It found that the petition did not provide the vital facts necessary to establish the alleged violation or its material effect on the result.
