Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. R. SWAMINATHAN, V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, JJ.
P.Milany S/o. Ponnuram - Appellant
Vs.
Election Commission of India - Respondent
WP No. 20680 of 2026
Decided On : 08-06-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.J.Vinoth
For the Respondent: Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, Standing Counsel
The right to challenge an election within a mandatory limitation period necessitates timely access to essential documents. Administrative policies restricting record access cannot supersede statutory provisions, and documents not specifically protected under the relevant election rules must be available for public inspection to ensure the efficacy of legal remedies.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 81, 83, 86 - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Rule 93 - Production and inspection of election papers - Right of a candidate to obtain certified copies of election documents - Petitioner sought documents to prepare an election petition - Statutory body denied access citing an internal policy restricting document issuance until 45 days after result declaration - Limitation period for filing an election challenge is strictly prescribed by statute - Restricting access to essential documents during the limitation period renders the right to legal challenge illusory - Administrative policy cannot supersede statutory rules governing public inspection - Documents not classified under restrictive categories must be furnished upon application. (Paras 10, 11, 15, 18, 22)
Facts of the case:
A candidate who participated in a general election sought certified copies of nomination papers, submitted affidavits, and objections to initiate a legal challenge against the result. The governing authority refused to provide these documents, asserting that administrative guidelines stipulated that such records would only be released after a 45-day period post-election. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to compel the production of these documents, arguing that the delay prevented him from verifying material facts required for a valid legal pleading.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the governing framework regarding election petitions is comprehensive and strictly time-bound. It held that while regulatory bodies may organize their records, they cannot implement policies that effectively bar a litigant from accessing documents essential to the exercise of their statutory right to challenge an election. The court clarified that the documents requested did not qualify as sensitive records protected from inspection under the relevant election rules.
Issues: The primary issues were the validity of an administrative policy restricting access to election records and whether such a restriction unjustifiably infringed upon the candidate's right to file an election petition within the mandatory statutory limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that statutory rules facilitating the inspection of election documents must prevail over administrative circulars. Because the legal right to challenge an election is statutory and time-limited, imposing an internal waiting period that extends beyond or consumes the limitation period violates the litigant’s right to seek judicial remedy. Therefore, the denial of access to non-restricted documents is legally unsustainable.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. need for access to election documents to initiate election petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. election commission circular imposing a 45-day waiting period for document release. (Para 8) |
| 3. strict legal requirements and limitation periods for election petitions under the 1951 act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. distinction between exempted election papers (rule 93-1) and publicly inspectable documents (rule 93-2). (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. administrative directions cannot override statutory rights to access information necessary for judicial remedies. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. mandatory production of documents to facilitate timely exercise of legal rights. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
Order :
(Order of the Court was made by V.Lakshminarayanan J.)
The petitioner contested the recently concluded General Election to the Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly. He stood for election at the Chepauk Thiruvallikeni Assembly Constituency. Unfortunately, he was not successful.
2. Even before the election, the petitioner made representations on 20.04.2026 and 27.04.2026 seeking for the following details:
“A. Certified copies of all the objections that were raised during the scrutiny of nomination papers on 07.04.2026 and the reasoned decisions taken by the Returning Officer after the summary inquiry of accepting/rejecting the nomination papers submitted by the candidates.
B. Certified copy of FORM-7A (list of contesting candidates).
C. Certified copies of the following candidate’s accepted affidavit in FORM-26.
1. AADIRAJARAM (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam)
2. AYSHA (Naam Tamilar Katchi)
3. UDHAYANIDHI STALIN (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam)
4. MOHAMMED YASSER (Bahujan Samaj Party)
5. SELVAM. D (Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam)
6. RAJESHKUMAR. K (Independent)”
3. The said representation was received by the Returning Officer on the very same days. For both these representations, the Returning Officer gave the following replies:
“(a) Whatever objections received against any candidates has been displayed at the display board in the Returning Officer’s Office, No.19, Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni Assembly Constituency for public view.
As per Hand Book for Returning Officer, Para 5.20.2 “a copy of the affidavits furnished by the candidates should be made available at the earliest by the Returning Officer to the DEO who will consolidate all such affidavits received by the Returning Officer in his district and make available the same to any person or persons desirous of obtaining the same on payment of nominal copying charges.”
(b) Certified copy of Form-7A (List of contesting candidates) – Displayed at RO Office and also available at website. (https://affidavit.eci.gov.in/)
(c) The certified copies of the candidate’s accepted affidavit in Form-26 and all the copies of affidavit shall be downloaded from the ECI website.(https://affidavit.eci.gov.in/)”
4. After the results were declared, the petitioner gave a representation on 15.05.2026 to the second respondent. In the said representation, he stated that he is proposing to file an election petition before this Court and for that purpose, he requires the following documents:
“1. Accepted Nomination paper in Form-2B and the Accepted affidavit in Form-26 submitted by the Returned candidate Thiru S.Udhayanidhi, sponsored by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party and the “Check List of the documents” in connection with said Accepted Nomination.
2. Rejected Nomination papers in Form-2B and the Rejected affidavit in Form-26 submitted by the Returned candidate Thiru S.Udhayanidhi, sponsored by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party and the “Check List of the documents” in connection with said Rejected Nominations.
3. All the Orders/decisions of the Returning Officer rejecting the fifteen (15) Nominations filed by the candidates during the scrutiny of Nominations on 07.04.2026.
4. All the objections for the Nominations that are received by the Returning Officer for the purpose of scrutiny on 07.04.2026.
5. All the Ord
