Madras High Court Refuses to Reject Election Petition Against Udhayanidhi Stalin's Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni Win; Clarifies 45-Day Limitation Under Section 81 RP Act
Court category: High Court
Court / details: Madras High Court
Location: Chennai, Tamil Nadu
On 13 November 2026, Justice G. Arul Murugan of the Madras High Court dismissed applications by Udhayanidhi Stalin seeking threshold rejection of P. Milany's election petition, holding that the 45-day limitation under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 excludes the result declaration day.
CASE DETAILS AT A GLANCE
Case Title: P. Milany v. Udhayanidhi Stalin & Ors.
Court: Madras High Court (Principal Seat, Chennai)
Bench: Justice G. Arul Murugan
Proceeding: Election Petition (Application to Reject Petition)
Date of Order: 13 November 2026
1. Executive Overview
On 13 November 2026, Justice G. Arul Murugan of the Madras High Court refused to dismiss at the threshold an election petition filed by independent candidate P. Milany challenging the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election victory of Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin from the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni constituency. Dismissing two applications seeking rejection of the petition and striking off substantial pleadings, the Court directed Stalin to file his reply statement by 11 December 2026 so the matter can proceed to trial.
2. The 45-Day Limitation Controversy
The Assembly election results were declared on 4 May 2026, and the election petition was presented on 18 June 2026. Seeking dismissal under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (which prescribes a strict 45-day limitation period from the date of election of the returned candidate), Stalin contended that the day of declaration (4 May) should not be excluded under the General Clauses Act, 1897—citing an Election Commission communication that mentioned 17 June 2026 as the deadline.
3. Court's Ruling and Trial Schedule
Justice G. Arul Murugan rejected the limitation bar and the request to strike out pleadings, holding that the election petition was maintainable and warranted regular trial adjudication. For election law practitioners, the order underscores the strict statutory computation rules under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 read with the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Citation: Madras High Court order dated 13 November 2026 in P. Milany v. Udhayanidhi Stalin & Ors. For election law and High Court civil litigation in Tamil Nadu, visit https://sklawhouse.com/practice or https://sklawhouse.com/contact-us.
Related City Articles
- Conditional Bail Under Section 483 BNSS: Madras High Court Grants Relief Considering Custody Duration and Victim's Hospital Discharge (Crl.O.P. No. 30977 of 2026)
- Direct Proof of Intercourse Not Mandatory: Adultery in Divorce Can Be Inferred From Cumulative Circumstantial Evidence, Rules Madras High Court (2026 (Mad) 214)
- 14 State-Run Universities Functioning Without Vice-Chancellors or Syndicates for 3–4 Years: Madras High Court Summons Higher Education Secretary
- Religious Use Cannot Exist in a Legal Vacuum: Madras High Court Orders State-Wide SOP for Temple Elephants Covering Microchips, Travel, and Noise Limits