HON’BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT – CJ SRIVATSAVA BENCH IMPOSES RUPEES ONE LAKH COST ON THE PETITIONER FOR FILING PIL AGAINST ECI Dear Principals and Students of Law Colleges in India,
HON’BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT – CJ SRIVATSAVA BENCH IMPOSES RUPEES ONE LAKH COST ON THE PETITIONER FOR FILING PIL AGAINST ECI
Dear Principals and Students of Law Colleges in India,
Background:
I filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the Election Commission of India, praying for the following reliefs:
To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to clarify its position regarding the allegations raised by the Leader of the Opposition in his PowerPoint presentation dated 7th August 2025, which were further corroborated by Hon’ble Union Minister Mr. Anurag Thakur in his press conference on 13th August 2025, concerning large-scale voter list manipulation in the 2024 General Elections to the 18th Lok Sabha. As a consequential order, to direct Respondent No. 1 to produce before this Hon’ble Court, and make available in the public domain, the relevant electoral roll data for all constituencies in machine-readable format, together with a detailed status report of all actions, inquiries, audits, and measures undertaken in response to these allegations, so as to uphold transparency, public confidence, and the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections under Articles 324, 14, and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
1. I resolved to file this PIL before the Hon’ble Madras High Court only after detailed research. Since PILs are usually not entertained, I enclosed 20 video conference links in support of my Petition. We were also aware that the newly appointed Chief Justice of Madras High Court is known to impose heavy costs on PIL petitioners and make adverse comments. Our team studied the opinion of a former Chief Election Commissioner, research interviews on the functioning of the ECI since 2019 (particularly after the removal of the CJI from the selection committee and the introduction of immunity provisions for Election Commissioners), and the views of eminent persons and former Hon’ble Supreme Court Judges (see typed set, pp. 35–37).
2. The CEC’s press statement, which was widely criticized, mainly defended his refusal to share information on the ground of the right to privacy, citing the judgment in Kamal Nath v. Election Commission of India (typed set II, p. 13, para 15). We prepared a detailed rebuttal to establish that the ECI is not functioning as expected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. We also examined the ECI’s perspective, assuming it was acting properly, and prepared a set of questions and answers in its support (typed set II, pp. 29–36).
4. Every lawyer cautioned that the present Chief Justice (who may retire in a few months) is disinclined to entertain PILs and likely to impose costs, branding petitioners as publicity-seekers. Therefore, I enclosed precedents of PILs allowed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court and appreciated by Judges now serving in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. The matter was listed as Item No. 14 on 09.09.2025.
Court Proceedings:
Petitioner: “My Lords, I seek directions to the Election Commission on the issue of transparency. Please see page 16 for the reliefs sought.”
CJH: “What is the prayer? … Reads … Oh, against the ECI? Withdraw or we will order.”
Petitioner: “My Lords, this issue concerns national importance and the basic structure of our Constitution. The CEC, in his press conference, declined to provide details, citing the judgment in Kamal Nath v. ECI. Moreover, he acted in a biased manner by issuing notice to Mr. Rahul Gandhi but not to Union Minister Mr. Thakur.”
“My Lords, I am not making allegations against the ECI, but seeking clarity on issues that the common man wants to know. Why is the CEC issuing threats?” (typed set I, p. 84)
CJH: “Just by referring to political speeches of some persons you cannot come before us. Please withdraw, otherwise we will impose heavy costs. You are seeking cheap publicity. I cannot tolerate this.”
Petitioner: “My Lords, I am a Professor of Constitutional Law and have trained more than one lakh CA students in finance. I have also filed PILs on legal education, highly appreciated by your Lordships’ predecessors. This Petition was filed only in the interest of our Nation.
Let me refer to para 15 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Kamal Nath v. ECI…”
Para 15: There is no doubt about the bona fides of the ECI. It is a matter of record that in the last 25-30 years, ECI has built up the reputation of an impartial body which strives to hold fair elections. It is a Constitutional Authority and has been discharging its functions quite satisfactorily. People of this country, by and large, trust this institution for its impartial manner of discharging its functions. That is absolutely essential as well in a democratic polity where ‘We, the people’ elect the representatives to the legislative assemblies of the State as well as Parliament at the 1 (2017) 10 SCC 1 Centre. It is the will of the people which should be truly translated into reality. In that sense, the function of ECI becomes very important and it is supposed to discharge the same with utmost integrity, impartiality and objectivity. In re: Special Reference No. 1 of 20022, this Court emphasised the importance of Election Commission in the following manner:
Petitioner continues: “Yet, relying on this, the CEC refused to disclose the details sought. Please also see the CSDS Report (typed set II, pp. 26–28). It records significant irregularities, including a sudden increase of 41 lakh votes in Maharashtra. Though later termed an error, the ECI filed an FIR instead of clarifying.
Further, when deletion of 65 lakh voters in Bihar was raised, the ECI claimed plenary powers under Article 324 and refused to explain. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had to intervene and direct restoration of transparency—something the ECI, as an independent body, ought to have done itself.”
6. Core Issues Raised:
1. Whether the ECI is functioning independently and transparently?
2. Whether the common citizen can trust the ECI to protect his voting rights?
CJH (after conferring with the companion judge): “You are seeking cheap publicity. This case has no merit. We will impose costs of Rupees One Lakh.”
Petitioner: “My Lords, for the sake of the Nation, I will accept the fine. But kindly see typed set II, pp. 29–34. I have prepared a detailed Q\&A, the product of extensive research and brainstorming with senior lawyers and experts. It is not against the ECI but will help it perform better.”
The Counsel for the ECI remained silent and finally thanked the Hon’ble CJH Justice Srivatsava for imposing costs on me.
Post-Hearing Note: I have been a disciple of Hon’ble Justice Abhay Oka, who always emphasized that a petitioner must first read the mind of the Bench. In this case, I had no choice but to file before this Bench, as the Hon’ble CJH retires only in March (six months away).
I anticipated that costs may be imposed, but this would make it easier to challenge the order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since no PIL directly on this issue is pending there, once someone else files, my appeal could be tagged. Any fine imposed will likely be set aside, especially if the matter comes before Hon’ble Justice Suryakant in November 2025.
As expected, the order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court suffers from infirmities. Their Lordships, without examining the exhaustive research material placed before them, concluded that I had not undertaken proper research. The issue, however, was never about research but about transparency.
My detailed analysis (typed set II, pp. 29–34), which could genuinely help the ECI perform better, was also ignored.
Final Lesson for students: You have to file a Petition if you are convinced it is in the interest of Nation/Public. Some Judges entertain PILs while some may be reluctant but as students of law we should respect the Judgments because we have appeal remedy and do your duty since judges don’t know you personally always be ready to learn from them and improve the defects in our approach if any never forget this.
Enclosures:
1. WP(PIL) No. 34108 of 2025 – Typed set I & Typed Set II
2. Copy of the order passed by Hon’ble Madras High Court
Regards,
Adv. (CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar
Editor
Dharma Chakra Channel
