Former Minister Duraimurugan of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) on Tuesday urged the Madras High Court to reject an election petition, challenging his 2021 victory by a margin of 746 votes from Katpadi Assembly constituency, since the five-year tenure of the 16th Legislative Assembly had ended and the 17th Assembly had commenced from May 2026.

Appearing before Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, advocate Richardson Wilson, representing the former Minister, urged the court to reject the 2021 election petition since V. Ramu of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) had filed it on grounds such as improper rejection of certain valid votes and not on the ground of alleged electoral corrupt practices.

The counsel relied upon a number of Supreme Court judgements to contend that election petitions could be decided even after the completion of the tenure of the Legislative Assembly concerned only if they had been filed on the ground of the returned candidate having allegedly indulged in electoral corrupt practices and not on any other ground.

It was also brought to the notice of the court Mr. Duraimurugan had been declared elected as the returned candidate in 2021 on securing 85,140 votes as against 84,394 votes secured by Mr. Ramu. Hence, the latter had alleged certain valid votes had been wrongly rejected and that there were procedural violations during the vote counting process on May 2, 2021.

Even as the election petition was pending in the High Court since 2021, the 16th Legislative Assembly completed its entire tenure. In fact, the election petitioner and the former Minister contested from the same Katpadi constituency in the 2026 elections too but both lost to M. Sudhakar of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, the court was told.

Therefore, nothing survives to be decided in this election petition any more, Mr. Wilson contended.

Appavu’s case

On the other hand, advocate Arvind Srevatsa, representing Mr. Ramu, cited the recent judgement of the Madras High Court allowing a 10-year-old election petition filed by former Assembly Speaker M. Appavu of DMK against the returned candidate I.S. Inbadurai of AIAADMK and declaring the petitioner to have been elected from Radhapuram constitutency in 2016.

Stating Mr. Appavu’s election petition was allowed even after 10 years though the ground raised in it was also about rejection of valid votes and not about any alleged electoral corrupt practice, the counsel contended the present election petition should also be taken up for trial instead of rejecting it solely on the ground of expiry of the 16th Legislative Assembly.

However, Mr. Wilson rebutted that the trial in Mr. Appavu’s election case had concluded much before the expiry of the 15th Legislative Assembly and even the votes were recounted in 2019. The results of the recount alone could not be declared till 2026 because of an interim order of the Supreme Court. Therefore, Mr. Appavu’s case would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, he added.