Election petitions cannot be filed solely on the basis of videos downloaded from the Internet: Madras High Court

P. Kamalakkannan of Tindivanam filed an election petition accusing the MLA of indulging in electoral corrupt practices. | Photo credit: FILE PHOTO

The Madras High Court held that an election petition cannot be filed solely on the basis of videos downloaded from the Internet without any independent documentary material proving the alleged involvement of the returned candidate in corrupt practices.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan passed the judgment while dismissing an election petition filed by a representative of the DMK’s advocate wing as a voter challenging the victory of former AIADMK minister C.Ve. Shanmugam from the Mailam Assembly constituency in the 2026 general election.

Mr. Shanmugam won the seat by securing 82,533 votes against 52,312 votes secured by his nearest rival candidate A. Vijay Niranjan of TVK. However, P. Kamalakkannan of Tindivanam filed an election petition accusing the MLA of indulging in electoral corrupt practices.

The petitioner alleged that the returned candidate had paid ₹1,000 each in cash to several voters in Kongarapattu village besides issuing coupons promising payment of ₹2,000 to each voter. He relied on video footage to claim that the money was paid with the consent of the MLA.

On the other hand, urging the court to dismiss the petition, the MLA said the petitioner had not disclosed to the court that he was a member of the DMK’s advocacy wing. The MLA also said that the videos were downloaded from the internet without verifying their authenticity and reliability.

After hearing both sides, the judge wrote, “The election petitioner had no personal knowledge of any of the allegations made in the election petition. The allegations were made only on the basis of information obtained from certain persons and a video downloaded from the Internet… The election petition is therefore found to have been filed only on hearsay.”

He also pointed out that the election petitioner has not named even a single person who allegedly distributed cash and coupons on behalf of the returned candidate. He did not specify the names or at least the approximate number of voters who allegedly received the money and coupons.

While filing an election petition, it was necessary to place all the material facts before the court, Justice Ilanthiraiyan said that the present petitioner did not even mention the amount allegedly distributed by the returned candidate or the number of coupons that were in circulation in the constituency.

“The absence of these material particulars renders the allegations insufficient to constitute a complete cause of action in relation to the alleged corrupt practice of election bribery,” the judge concluded.

Published – 23 Oct 2026 01:34 IST