Defective Attestation in Election Affidavit must impact Results to sustain challenge: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has reinforced the high threshold required to unseat a returned candidate, holding that technical defects in the attestation of election affidavits do not constitute a 'substantial defect' unless they are proven to have materially affected the election outcome.

In a verdict delivered by Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, the Court allowed an application filed by Mr. K.A. Sengottaiyan, the returned candidate from the Gobichettipalayam Assembly Constituency, seeking the rejection of an election petition filed against him. The election petition, filed by Mr. V.B. Prabhu, primarily challenged the validity of the affidavit in Form No.26 submitted by the candidate on the grounds that the Notary Public who attested the document did not possess a valid or subsisting certificate of practice at the time of attestation.

Material Fact Threshold under the Representation of People Act

The Madras High Court observed that for an election petition to survive a preliminary challenge under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it must disclose a complete cause of action. Justice Ilanthiraiyan noted that the respondent failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which necessitates a concise statement of material facts.

The Bench highlighted that even if the allegation regarding the Notary's expired certificate were true, the petitioner failed to plead how this specific irregularity 'materially affected' the result of the election as required under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Relying on the precedent in Kanimozhi Karunanidhi vs. A. Santhana Kumar & Ors. ( "(2024) 18 SCC 59": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 385), the Court reiterated that the omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action, rendering the petition liable for summary dismissal.

Background

The dispute originated following the 2026 Assembly Elections where K.A. Sengottaiyan was declared the winner. The respondent, V.B. Prabhu, moved the High Court alleging that Sengottaiyan’s nomination was improperly accepted. The core contention was that the Advocate-Notary who attested the candidate's mandatory affidavit in Form No.26 lacked a subsisting certificate of practice.

The applicant (Sengottaiyan) argued that this issue had already been scrutinized and rejected by the Returning Officer during the nomination stage. He contended that the election petition was a 'frivolous and meaningless litigation' as it did not allege any corrupt practice or show how the attestation defect influenced the voters. The Madras High Court, after perusing the documents including the Returning Officer's order, agreed that the petitioner had not provided any 'triable issue'. Following the principles laid down in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, the Court emphasized that while considering rejection, it looks only at the averments in the petition, but those averments must legally constitute a ground under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Case Details:
Case No.: Original Application No.807 of 2026 and E.L.P.No.31 of 2026
Neutral Citation: [Not Provided]
Case Title: K.A. Sengottaiyan vs. V.B. Prabhu & Ors.
Date of Judgment: September 15, 2026
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Bench: Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 22335