Udhayanidhi says election petition against him was filed in Madras High Court after 45-day mark

Udhayanidhi says election petition against him was filed in Madras High Court after 45-day mark left Udhayanidhi Stalin. File PTI PTI R SENTHILKUMAR Chennai: Tamil Nadu Assembly LoP Udhayanidhi Stalin arrives for the state Assembly session, in Chennai, Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2026. (PTI Photo/R Senthilkumar)(PTI08_25_2026_000069B) Justice G. Arul Murugan winds up hearing oral arguments on applications filed by the Leader of the Opposition to reject the election petition and strike off pleadings CHENNAI Tamil Nadu’s Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Udhayanidhi Stalin has contended before the Madras High Court that an election petition challenging his victory from the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni Assembly constituency in the 2026 polls has been filed after the expiry of the statutory time limit of 45 days.

Tamil Nadu election results: Udhayanidhi Stalin wins; may lead DMK in Assembly storyline 1 Appearing before Justice G. Arul Murugan, senior counsel P. Wilson urged the judge to reject the election petition at the threshold, without taking it up for trial, on the ground that it had been filed after the limitation period, prescribed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, ended.

The counsel said, the LoP had secured 62,992 votes as against his nearest rival candidate D. Selvam of the TVK, who got 55,852 votes. The election petition had been filed by P. Milany of Theni district, who had also contested from the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni constituency and secured 30 votes. Madras High Court calls for report on complaint against Udhayanidhi Stalin’s election affidavit Madras High Court calls for report on complaint against Udhayanidhi Stalin’s election affidavit Justice V.

Lakshminarayanan directs the High Court Registry to obtain the report from the metropolitan magistrate’s court at George Town in Chennai by October 15, 2026 Madras High Court calls for report on complaint against Udhayanidhi Stalin’s election affidavit storyline 1 Highlighting that Mr. Udhayanidhi was declared elected on May 4, 2026, the counsel claimed the election petition challenging his victory ought to have been filed on or before June 17, 2026.

Since the present petition had been filed on June 18, 2026, he argued it was barred by limitation. LoP’s reasoning The counsel contended that the principle of excluding the first day, under the General Clauses Act of 1897, for the purpose of calculating limitation period would not apply to election petitions. He underlined that Section 81 of the 1951 Act specifically uses the term “from the date of election of the returned candidate.” Also Read: Udhayanidhi Stalin arrested for ‘misogynist’ remarks; released on bail “Normally, MiLord, Your Lordship knows that if a judgment is pronounced today, the limitation would begin only from the next day.

But the 1951 Act is a special legislation and it specifically states that an election petition must be presented within 45 days from the date of the election of the returned candidate,” he said. The counsel said, the Election Commission of India (ECI) had also sent a communication to the Registrar General of the High Court confirming that the election petitions with respect to the 2026 general elections must be filed in the High Court on or before June 17, 2026.

TVK government does not want Udhayanidhi in Tamil Nadu Assembly, charges M.K. Stalin TVK government does not want Udhayanidhi in Tamil Nadu Assembly, charges M.K. Stalin “If the intention was merely to interrogate him, it could have been done in Chennai. What was the need to take him to Thanjavur? Why were sections invoked that would make it difficult for him to secure bail?,” questioned Mr.

Stalin TVK government does not want Udhayanidhi in Tamil Nadu Assembly, charges M.K. Stalin storyline 1 He relied upon a Supreme Court judgment in Youaraj Rai versus Chander Bahadur (2006) and argued that the top court, too, had categorically held that the limitation period for filing an election petition would begin from the date of election of the returned candidate. It was brought to the notice of Justice Murugan that Section 86 of the 1951 Act makes it clear that an election petition barred by limitation must be dismissed by the High Court.

The LOP also argued the election petitioner had failed to aver any acceptable material facts requiring the conduct of trial. Election petitioner’s argument On the other hand, the election petitioner’s counsel argued that the petition had been filed within the limitation period and the High Court Registry had rightly numbered the election petition after being convinced that it was filed within the 45-day period.

He insisted on conducting a full-fledged trial. Heated exchange in T.N. Assembly as Udhayanidhi Stalin questions CM Vijay’s government on law and order Heated exchange in T.N. Assembly as Udhayanidhi Stalin questions CM Vijay’s government on law and order Leader of Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin charged that law and order situation has deteriorated since the TVK-led government assumed office in May Heated exchange in T.N.

Assembly as Udhayanidhi Stalin questions CM Vijay’s government on law and order storyline 1 After both sides concluded the oral arguments on applications filed by the LoP to reject the election petition and also to strike off certain pleadings from the election petition, the judge asked the counsel to submit their written submissions on October 26, 2026, when he shall reserve orders on those applications.