Madras High Court Rejects Election Petition Against Colachel MLA Tharahai Cuthbert Over VVPAT

The Madras High Court has thrown out an election petition filed by S.M.Anthony Muthu, a CPIML Liberation candidate, challenging the victory of Tharahai Cuthbert from the 231 Colachel Assembly Constituency in the April 2026 Tamil Nadu elections. The Court held on August 11, 2026, that a candidate's mere belief in his popularity, without concrete material, cannot justify a manual recount of VVPAT slips.

The Core Question: Does Good Work Guarantee Votes?
Muthu, a former President of Reethapuram Town Panchayat, argued that his long-standing public service in eight specific booths should have secured him a higher ranking. He came seventh, but believed he could have placed fifth if the VVPAT slips from those booths were counted manually. He sought to declare Cuthbert's election void and demanded a recount under Rule 56D of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

The petitioner's request to the Returning Officer was made only on 23.05.2026—nearly three weeks after results were declared on 04.05.2026. The Court noted this delay and questioned the lack of any material to support the suspicion.

Petitioner's Argument: A Valuable Right Violated
Counsel for Muthu argued that Rule 56D confers a valuable right on candidates to request VVPAT counting, and any error in vote count should set aside the election. He pointed to voters from those eight booths who had "represented" that they voted for him, citing his developmental work in the area.

Respondent's Counter: No Cause of Action
Appearing for the returned candidate, Cuthbert, counsel Narmadha Sampath contended that the petition lacked material particulars and failed to disclose a cause of action. She relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (2024 INSC 341), which reaffirmed the accuracy of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).

Court's Analysis: Belief Alone is Not Enough
Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy scrutinised Rule 56D and observed that an application for VVPAT counting must be made immediately after the result sheet is announced. In this case, the request was belated and lacked any reasonable basis. The Court emphasised that in a democracy, the electorate—not a candidate's self-assessment—determines the outcome.

"It may be true that he has done good work. But on the polling day, it is the electorate that decides whom to vote for. In a democracy, every person who does good public service can expect people to vote for him. But to impugn the count, this belief alone is not enough."

The Court also highlighted that even if the petitioner's contention were accepted, he would only move from seventh to fifth place—not affect the returned candidate's victory. The petition, therefore, failed to complete the cause of action required to set aside an election.

The Verdict: Rejected at Threshold
Citing Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi (1986 Supp SCC 315), the Court held that an election petition lacking foundational and material particulars is liable to be rejected under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The petition was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs, and the deposit was refunded to the petitioner. The ruling reinforces the reliability of EVMs and underscores that election challenges must rest on concrete evidence, not mere speculation.