Madras High Court: The present public interest litigation (‘PIL’) was filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus against the Election Commission of India. The petition aimed to compel the Election Commission to clarify its position regarding the allegations raised on alleged voter list manipulation during the 2024 General Elections to the 18th Lok Sabha, as raised by Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition and further corroborated by Union Minister Anurag Thakur. The Division Bench of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ*., and G. Arul Murugan, J., while dismissing the petition held that it lacked concrete material and relied solely on allegations and counter-allegations made on certain platforms.
The petitioner referred to a PowerPoint presentation made by Rahul Gandhi on 07-08-2025 and a press conference held by Union Minister Anurag Thakur on 13-08-2025. Both events allegedly highlighted large-scale voter list manipulation in the 2024 General Elections to the 18th Lok Sabha.
As a consequential relief, the petitioner also sought an order directing the Election Commission to produce and publish the relevant electoral roll data for all constituencies in machine-readable format, along with a detailed status report of all actions, inquiries, audits, and measures undertaken in response to the allegations. The petition invoked Articles 324, 14, and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution to support its plea for transparency and the preservation of public confidence in the electoral process.
The Court emphasised that the petition lacked concrete material and only referred to allegations and counter-allegations made on a certain platform. The Court observed that the petition merely reproduced those allegations without any independent research. The Court further noted that it could not be asked to conduct a roving inquiry, as the content and form were vague and lacked material details and particulars. Consequently, the Court held that no direction could be issued to the Election Commission to “clarify its position” as requested.
The Court, therefore, dismissed the petition as misconceived, imposed costs of Rs 1,00,000 payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within one month, and closed the interim application. The Court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits and left the matter open for consideration in a properly constituted petition. Subsequently, the Court concluded that the order would not prevent the Election Commission from taking its own decisions on the issues raised in the petition.
[V. Venkata Sivakumar v. Election Commission of India, WP No. 34108 of 2025, 09-09-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: V. Venkata Sivakumar
For the Respondents: Niranjan Rajagopalan, K. Seetha Ram