Madras High Court Rejects Election Petition Against TVK MLA N Elaiyaraja

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (August 18), rejected an election petition filed by a voter of Uthangarai Legislative Assembly constituency, challenging the victory of N Elaiyaraja, the Tamilaga Vettri Kazham (TVK) party candidate. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 392]

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy allowed an application filed by the winning MLA seeking to reject the election petition and thus dismissed the plea. The judge also made it clear that he intended to decide all the election petitions pending before him within the 6-month time period provided under the Representation of People Act, and not to keep it pending for long.

The court noted that the petitioner had challenged the election on the ground that her nomination was rejected improperly. The court further noted that the petitioner's nomination was rejected since her name was not on the electoral roll. The court noted that the petitioner had earlier approached the court aggrieved by the exclusion of her name from the electoral roll, and the plea was rejected by the court, holding that the petitioner had slept over her rights. The court thus held that there was no cause of action to challenge the victory.

"Thus, the order rejected the petitioner's claim on the merits, holding that when the entire SIR was given due publicity and the draft rolls were published, the petitioner slept over her rights. Admittedly, the petitioner did not verify the draft rolls, and her case is that she came to know only on 02.04.2026. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, even taking all the averments in the petition as true, the petition does not disclose a cause of action to challenge the election of the first respondent, and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed," the court said.

The court also noted that the petitioner had mentioned a different name of the candidate in the election petition, which, in the court's opinion, was not a clerical or typographical error. The court thus rejected another application filed by the candidate seeking to amend the plea. The court thus held that the election petition filed to set aside the victory of another candidate, was liable to be rejected.

It may also be noted that MLA Elaiyaraja had recently alleged that he was approached by persons who offered to pay him Rs 30 Crore if he voted against the Speaker in a proposed no-confidence motion. 

On June 26, Elaiyaraja had given a complaint in the Triplicane Police Station alleging that he was contacted over the phone by a person named Thirunavukkarassu who informed Elaiyaraja that a major political party would be moving a resolution against the Speaker in the Assembly and urged Elaiyaraja to vote in their favour. It was submitted that Elaiyaraja was offered Rs 35 Crore for the same, and he was threatened with dire consequences if he did not act in the particular manner.

On July 1, three persons were arrested by the police in connection with the case. The police later said that, as per the investigation, Elaiyaraja was contacted at the behest of Senthil Balaji and his brother Ashok Kumar. The High Court had given anticipatory bail to Senthil Balaji and his brother. Earlier this month, the High Court also stayed the investigation and sought a response on a plea by one of the accused seeking to transfer the case to the CB -CID.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Venkatesh

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.I.Siddiq, Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan

Case Title: C Geetha v Dr N Elaiyaraja and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

Case No: ELP 45 of 2026