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

An election petition cannot be filed merely on the basis of videos downloaded from the internet without there being any independent documentary material to establish the returned candidate’s alleged involvement in corrupt practices, the Madras High Court has held.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan passed the ruling while rejecting an election petition filed by a DMK advocate’s wing office-bearer, in his capacity as a voter, challenging the victory of AIADMK former Minister C.Ve. Shanmugam from Mailam Assembly constituency in the 2026 general elections.

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

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

On the other hand, urging the court to reject the election petition, the MLA said, the petitioner had failed to disclose to the court that he was a member of the DMK advocate’s wing. The MLA also stated that the videos had been downloaded from the internet without ascertaining their authenticity and reliability.

After hearing both sides, the judge wrote: “The election petitioner had no personal knowledge of any of the allegations leveled in the election petition. The allegations were made solely on the basis of information received from certain persons and a videograph downloaded from the internet... Therefore, the Election Petition is found to be filed only on hearsay allegations.”

He also highlighted that the election petitioner had failed to name even a single person who had allegedly distributed cash and coupons on behalf of the returned candidate. He had also failed to specify the names or at least the approximate number of voters who had reportedly received the cash and coupons.

Stating that it was essential to place all material facts before the court while filing an election petition, Justice Ilanthiraiyan said, the present petitioner had not even mentioned the amount of money reportedly distributed by the returned candidate or the number of coupons that were circulated in the constituency.

“Absence of these material particulars renders the allegations insufficient to constitute a complete cause of action in respect of the alleged corrupt practice of electoral bribery,” the judge concluded.