A civil election petition filed against Chief Minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) president M.K. Stalin, by the candidate who lost to him in Kolathur constituency in the 2011 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election, has come back to haunt the party and its leader, nearly 15 years later. In the 2011 election, Stalin defeated All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam candidate Saidai S. Duraisamy, then the Chennai Mayor, by a narrow margin of 2,739 votes.
Duraisamy filed Election Petition No. 1 of 2011 in the Madras High Court, alleging corrupt practices by Stalin and DMK workers under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Duraisamy claimed that Stalin and DMK leaders had distributed cash and gifts—a classic cash-for-votes scenario—which is barred under the rules of the Election Commission of India (ECI). Apart from this, Duraisamy alleged that the DMK printed and distributed booth slips with DMK symbols. He also claimed that the candidate exceeded the prescribed expenditure limit.
History of hearings
The case was first heard at the Madras High Court and finally at the Supreme Court. On February 19, 2026, the Supreme Court reserved for judgment the petition. (Duraisamy had approached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court dismissed the case.) No date has been set to pronounce the order by the Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, who heard the case. No statutory deadline exists for the Supreme Court to pronounce an order. But this is one case where all eyes are on the Supreme Court given the fact that Tamil Nadu is an election-bound state.
The case had dragged on for several years across courts. It was in June 2017 that the Madras High Court dismissed the case. At that time, Justice M. Venugopal had noted that the allegations raised against Stalin were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Prior to this, the Madras High Court had, in March 2015, accepted electronic evidence filed by Duraisamy, but in November 2015 the Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court order accepting such evidence. In doing so, the Bench led by Justice J. Chelameswar said that the admissibility of the evidence would be decided in the final hearings of an election case.
In February 2022, Stalin’s lawyers made an urgent mention before the Supreme Court to hear the appeal filed by Duraisamy. According to a report, appearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana, senior advocate Kapil Sibal and Tamil Nadu Additional Advocate-General Amit Anand Tiwari said that the appeal had been pending since 2017. Even after that was mentioned, the case did not reach a logical conclusion.
Former Minister V. Senthil Balaji addressing mediapersons in Chennai on May 26, 2023, in connection with Income Tax Department searches in premises of individuals allegedly linked to him. | Photo Credit: B. JOTHI RAMALINGAM
In January 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to examine a short legal point: whether electronic evidence is actually admissible under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It included videos and photographs contained in compact discs (CDs). Duraisamy contended that it showed corrupt practices committed ahead of the 2011 election by the DMK in Kolathur constituency. The Bench said that the court would also consider if the content in the CDs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Spate of legal problems
This is not the only legal problem that the DMK faces. In the past few years it has been forced to drop two Ministers because of charges against them; as many as four other Ministers are under the scanner of Central agencies for one issue or the other.
Owing to pressure from the agencies, V. Senthilbalaji (arrested in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case linked to a cash-for-jobs scam) and K. Ponmudy (raided in 2023) were forced to quit the Stalin Cabinet.
The government is battling repeated questions from the Madras High Court as to why a first information report (FIR) has not been filed against K.N. Nehru, an outgoing Minister at the centre of a cash-for-jobs scam, a transfer racket, and tender scams. Nehru, a key DMK organiser in central Tamil Nadu, is having a hard time fending off the agencies and the court. “The moment an FIR is registered against him, the ED [Enforcement Directorate] will enter the scene,” a lawyer associated with the DMK said.
I. Periyasamy, another Minister who was raided by the ED in August 2025, had approached the High Court for relief. The Madras High Court dismissed his challenge in January 2026 and the proceedings continue. Anitha R. Radhakrishnan, yet another Minister, has been under the ED scanner for PMLA offences. In January 2025, some of his assets worth Rs.1.26 crore were attached in a disproportionate assets-linked money-laundering case. Earlier, in 2022, the authorities attached another property of his worth Rs.1 crore. The probe continues and a source told Frontline that he does not want to contest the 2026 election because of the multiple cases.
Party general secretary and veteran leader Durai Murugan, who was raided by the ED and the Income Tax Department in 2019 and in 2025, has a disproportionate assets case revived against him.
The party leadership is in favour of both Durai Murugan and Ponmudy sitting out the 2026 election, but it is unlikely that either will do so voluntarily.
Also Read | Income tax raids on DMK leader E.V. Velu’s premises across Tamil Nadu
Also Read | How Senthil Balaji’s arrest unleashed controversy and conspiracy theories