The Madras High Court has dismissed an election petition filed by Anthony Muthu, candidate of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation, challenging the victory of Tharahai Cuthbert of the Indian National Congress in the 2026 assembly elections.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, presiding over the matter, observed that the petitioner sought a recount of votes solely on the belief that his good public service in certain booths would have resulted in more votes for him.
The court noted that Anthony Muthu had contended that, having served as President of Reethapuram Town Panchayat and enjoyed goodwill in the area—particularly in eight specified booths—he believed a larger number of electors had voted for him, which, if counted, would have placed him fifth instead of seventh in the results.
The bench emphasized that no material was placed on record to raise a suspicion about the correctness of the vote count, and the petition relied entirely on the petitioner's perception or belief.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy stated, 'The petitioner believes that, because of the good work he has done, more people from the eight booths have voted for him and have so represented to him. This is nothing but his own version and cannot form a reasonable basis for suspicion. It may be true that he has done good work. But on the polling day, it is the electorate that decides whom to vote for. In a democracy, every person who does good public service can expect people to vote for him. But to impugn the count, this belief alone is not enough.'
The petitioner had sought relief under Rule 56D of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, praying for a manual count of VVPAT slips in booth numbers 58 to 64 and 66 to dispel what he described as a 'cloud of suspicion'.
The court observed that Rule 56D requires a candidate, his election agent, or counting agent to make a written application to the returning officer after the counting of votes to initiate a count of printed paper slips.
It was noted that no such application was made by the petitioner after the counting of votes; instead, a belated representation was made, which did not comply with the procedural requirement under the rule.
On behalf of the respondent, it was argued that the petition disclosed no cause of action and was liable to be rejected, as there was no material to support the suspicion of incorrect counting.
The bench concurred, holding that mere belief or apprehension, without any supporting material, cannot constitute a valid ground for challenging the integrity of the electoral process.
Accordingly, the court found no cause of action in the petition and dismissed it in its entirety.
Counsel for the petitioner appeared as Mr. P. T. Perumal, while counsel for the respondent included Ms. Narmadha Sampath, Ms. M. B. Ramya, and Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan.
The case is cited as SM Anthony Muthu v Tharahai Cuthbert and Others, ELP No 44 of 2026.