Madras High Court calls for report on complaint against Udhayanidhi Stalin’s election affidavit

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (October 13, 2026), directed its Registry to call for a report from a metropolitan magistrate’s court at George Town in Chennai regarding the numbering of a complaint accusing the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Udhayanidhi Stalin of having submitted a false election affidavit along with his nomination form filed for this year’s elections.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan wanted to know from the magistrate, by Thursday (October 15), as to how long would it take to number the petition filed by P. Milany of Theni district who was one of the contestants in Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni constituency from where the DMK leader and former Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu got elected for the second consecutive term during the Legislative Assembly elections held this year.

The judge called for the report since Mr. Milany’s counsel told the court he had lodged the complaint against the LoP, under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act of 1951 for allegedly furnishing false information in the election affidavit filed along with the nomination form, but the magistrate court was yet to entertain the petition filed on September 8.

In his plea seeking a direction to the magistrate court to expedite the process of taking his complaint on file, the petitioner said, a Division Bench of the High Court had in June this year directed the Chennai district election officer (the Greater Chennai Corporation Commissioner) to furnish to him certified copies of the accepted as well as rejected nomination papers and affidavits of Mr. Udhayanidhi.

After the receipt of those copies, the petitioner had filed an election petition before the High Court challenging the victory of the LoP from Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni constituency and simultaneously filed a petition before the metropolitan magistrate under Section 125 of the RP Act which provides for imprisonment up to six months or fine or both if the charge of filing a false election affidavit gets proved.

The petitioner said, the third metropolitan magistate’s court, designated as a special court for hearing MP/MLA cases, had in fact sought a clarification from him regarding the maintainability of the petition immediately after filing but thereafter, there was no progress and the petition was not taken on file at all though over a month had passed by since it was filed.