Tamil Nadu Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin has contended before the Madras High Court that an election petition challenging his victory from the Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni Assembly constituency in the 2026 elections was filed after the expiry of the statutory 45-day time limit. Represented by senior counsel P. Wilson before Justice G. Arul Murugan, the Leader of the Opposition urged the court to throw out the petition at the threshold without proceeding to trial on the grounds that it violated the limitation period laid down under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Legal counsel noted that Udhayanidhi secured 62,992 votes to defeat his nearest opponent, D. Selvam of the TVK who received 55,852 votes, while the petition was brought forward by P. Milany, another candidate from the same constituency who secured only 30 votes. Because the election result was officially declared on May 4, 2026, the challenge should have been lodged by June 17, 2026. Instead, the petition was presented on June 18, 2026, making it legally barred by limitation.
Developing the defense's reasoning, the senior counsel argued that standard provisions under the General Clauses Act of 1897 to exclude the first day when calculating limitation periods do not apply to election petitions. Because the 1951 statute constitutes special legislation specifying that a petition must be presented within 45 days from the exact date of election, the counting includes the day the result was declared. Furthermore, the Election Commission of India had formally communicated to the High Court Registrar General that all petitions concerning the 2026 general elections required submission by June 17.
Citing a Supreme Court precedent in the case of Youaraj Rai versus Chander Bahadur, the defense emphasized that the top court previously ruled that the limitation window starts directly from the returned candidate's election date. Pointing to Section 86 of the 1951 Act, the legal team noted that any time-barred election petition must be mandatorily dismissed by the High Court. The defense also argued that the petitioner failed to present sufficient material facts that would justify holding a trial.
Conversely, the election petitioner maintained that the filing fell within the permitted timeframe, noting that the High Court Registry had thoroughly examined the matter and properly numbered the petition upon finding it compliant with the 45-day window, thus warranting a full trial. Following the conclusion of oral arguments concerning the applications to reject the petition and strike out specific pleadings, Justice Murugan directed both legal teams to file written submissions by October 26, 2026, at which point orders on the applications are scheduled to be reserved.