DIARY NO: 55434 of 2025 All Defects have been duly cured. Whatever has been added/deleted/modifies in the petition is the result of curing of defects and nothing else. Except curing the defects, nothing has been done. Paper books are complete in all respects. Signature: Adv(CA) V. VENKATA SIVAKUMAR Petitioner -in -Person

by Sekar Reporter · September 27, 2025

DECLARATION

DIARY NO: 55434 of 2025

All Defects have been duly cured. Whatever has been added/deleted/modifies in the petition is the result of curing of defects and nothing else. Except curing the defects, nothing has been done. Paper books are complete in all respects.

Signature:
Adv(CA) V. VENKATA SIVAKUMAR
Petitioner -in -Person
Date: 20-09- 2025
Contact No: 9444785500

INDEX
S. No. Particulars of Documents Page No. of part to which it belongs Remarks
Part I
(Contents
of Paper Book) Part II
(Contents
of file alone)
(I) (II) (III) (IV) (V)
1. Court Fee
2. Office Report on Limitation A A
3. Listing Performa A1-A2 A1-A2
4. Cover Page of Paper Book A-3
5. Index of Record of Proceeding A-4
6. Limitation Report prepared by the Registry A-5
7. Defect List
8. Note Sheet
9. Synopsis and List of Dates B-G
10. Copy of the Impugned Judgment and final order dated 09-09-2025 passed the Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court in WP.No.34108 of 2025, WMP. No. 38263 of 2025
1-6
11. Special Leave Petition with Affidavit 7-18
12. APPENDIX-1
Representation of Peoples Act 1950 and Article 324 in Constitution of India,
19-39
13. ANNEXURE – P1
About the Petitioner

40-48
14. ANNEXURE – P2
True Copies of the Writ Petition, Interim Injunction and affidavit in WP. No. 34108 of 2025 before Hon’ble Madras High Court

49-68
15. ANNEXURE – P3
True copies of Copy of the Sec 65B certificate as per evidence act along with links for the sources of information collected from internet
69-70
16. ANNEXURE – P4
True copies of Copy of the media reports on the presentation of Hon’ble LOP Mr. Rahul Gandhi on the election mal practices

71-74
17. ANNEXURE – P5
True copies of the media reports on the agitation of 300 MPs representing all the opposition parties before ECI
75-76
18. ANNEXURE – P6
True Copies of the media reports confirming the allegations of LOP with regard to fake voters through fact check carried out by independent media

77-79
19. ANNEXURE – P7
True copies of the threatening letter issued by ECI to Mr. Rahul Gandhi instead of providing clarifications

80-82
20. ANNEXURE – P8
True copies of inaction of ECI against the Union Minister Hon’ble Mr. Anurag Thakur
83-91
21. ANNEXURE – P9
True copies of the media reports on the confirmation of Election mal practices by Hon’ble Union minister Mr. Anurag Thakur

92-94
22. ANNEXURE – P10
True copies of the Interim order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court directing the EC of Bihar to publish names and reasons for deleting 65 lakh voters

95-101
23. ANNEXURE – P11
True copies of the media reports directing EC to re-verify the EVM mal practices by Hon’ble Supreme Court which resulted in elected candidate being removed in Haryana

102-114
24. ANNEXURE – P12
True Copies of the related reports
a. Summary of the expert reports on the need for independent body as envisaged in Our Constitutes, b. Summary of the bias doctrine, c. summary of the key highlights of press meet by ECI and the experts reaction

115-132
25. ANNEXURE – P13
Copy of the second press statement of Hon’ble Mr. Rahul Gandhi on voter deletion and the impact analysis

133-149
26. IA. No. __________ of 2025
Application for Exemption from Filing Certified Copy of the Impugned Order
150-153
27. IA. No. __________ of 2025
Application for permission to appear and argue in person
154-155
28. Memo of Parties 156-157
29. Memo of Appearance 158
30. Bar Council Member ID 159
31. ID Proof (Aadhar Card) 160

Adv.(CA) V. VENKATA SIVAKUMAR
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(ORDER XVI RULE 4(1) (a)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:
Adv.(CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar
……Petitioner
VERSUS

The Election Commission of India,
Represented by the Chief Election Commissioner,
And others etc etc.
…..Respondents
OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION
1. The Petition is/are within time.
2. The Petition is not barred by time and there is delay of days in filing the same against order dated Judgment and final common order dated 09-09-2025 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court in 34108 of 2025, WMP. No. 38263 of 2025. Petition for Condonation of Delay of days in filing the SLP has been filed.
3. There is delay of days in refilling the petition and petition for Condonation of days delay in refilling has been filed.

BRANCH OFFICER
Place: New Delhi
Dated: 23-09-2025

PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION

The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

Central Act:(Title): Representation of Peoples Act1950
Section: Under Article 136 of Constitution of India
Central Rule: N/A
Rule No(s): N/A
State Act: N/A
Section: N/A
State Rule: N/A
Rule No(s): N/A
Impugned Interim Order: N/A
Impugned final Order/
Decree: 09-09-2025
High Court: Hon’ble Madras High Court Chennai
Name of Judges: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Chief Justice,
Hon’ble Justice Mr. G. Arul Murugan
Tribunal/Authority: Hon’ble Division Bench of
Hon’ble Madras High Court

1. Nature of Matter: Special Leave Petition

2. (a) Petitioner/Appellant No.1: Adv. (CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar
(b) e-mail ID: arunasri.siva@gmail.com
(c) Mobile phone no: 9444785500

3. (a) Respondents: The Election Commission of India,
Represented by the Chief Election Commissioner and 3 others
(b) e-mail ID: complaints@eci.gov.in
(c) Mobile phone no:
4. (a) Main Category classification:
(b) Sub classification:

5. Not to be listed before: N/A
6. (a) Similar disposed of matter
Which citation, if any, and
Cases details: No similar matter is disposed off
(b) Similar Pending matter with
Case Details: No Similar matter is pending

7. Criminal Matters:
(a) Whether accuses/
Convicted has surrendered: N/A
(b) FIR No. & Date: N/A
(c ) Police Station: N/A
(d) Sentence Awarded: N/A

8. Land Acquisition Matters: N/A
(a) Date of Section 4 Notification: N/A
(b) Date of Section 6 Notification: N/A
(c) Date of Section 17 Notification: N/A

9. Tax Matters: State the tax effect: N/A

10. Special Category (first
Petitioner/Appellant only): N/A
Senior Citizen 65 years/ SC/ST
Woman/Child / Disabled/
Legal Aid case/ in custody: N/A

11. Vehicle Number (in case of
Motor accident Claim matters): N/A

Date: 23-09-2025
Adv(CA). V. Venkata Sivakumar
Petitioner-in-Person
arunasri.siva@gmail.com

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2025
(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

The Election Commission of India,
Represented by the Chief Election Commissioner,
And others etc etc.
…..Respondents
WITH
IA No. of 2025
Application for Exemption from Filing Certified Copy of the Impugned Order
IA. No. of 2025
Application for permission to appear and argue in person

PAPER BOOK
(For Index, Kindly See Inside)

Petitioner-in-Person:- Adv(CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2025

(Against the Impugned Judgement and Final order dated 09-09-2025 passed the Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. No. 34108 of 2025, WMP No. 38263 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
Adv.(CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar
……Petitioner
VERSUS
The Election Commission of India,
Represented by the Chief Election Commissioner,
And others etc etc.
…..Respondents
INDEX
SL. No. PARTICULARS Copies Court Fee
1. Synopsis and List of Dates 1 NA
2. Impugned Order 1 NA
3 SLP with Affidavit and Interim Relief Prayer 1
4. Appendix 1 NA
5. Annexure P1-P13 1 NA
6. Application for Exemption from Filing Certified Copy of the Impugned Order 1 NA
7. Application for permission to appear and argue in person 1 NA
10. Memo of Parties 1 NA
11. Memo of Appearance 1 NA
12. Advocate Records & ID Proof 1 NA
Total
DATE: 23-09-2025

Adv. (CA) V. VENKATA SIVAKUMAR
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

SECTION: XVI
SYNOPSIS
INTRODUCTION:
1. The Present Special Leave Petition is being filed against the final order dated 09.09.2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 34108 of 2025, WMP No. 38263 of 2025. The writ petition had sought directions to the 1st Respondent, the Election Commission of India, on issues concerning its transparent and independent functioning so as to reassure the common citizen that his democratic right to vote remains safe and secure. (P2: Pg. no. 49-58)

2. Service-Oriented Background of the Petitioner

i. The Petitioner is a practicing Advocate, Chartered Accountant, and a renowned Professor for CA students, with four decades of dedicated professional service. He has trained thousands of socially and economically backward students on a pro bono basis, many of whom have gone on to qualify as Chartered Accountants and are presently serving as directors and top executives in companies worldwide. The Petitioner authored books on Strategic Finance and Strategic Cost Management and court crafting techniques to Law students. (P1: Pg. no. 40-48)

ii. The Petitioner has filed several Public Interest Litigations. His work has been consistently appreciated by successive Hon’ble Chief Justices of the Madras High Court and by Learned Judges who now adorn the bench of this Hon’ble Court. (P1: Pg. no. 42-47)

iii. The Petitioner respectfully submits that at a recent book release function, he spoke on the theme of justice dispensation as depicted in the Valmiki Ramayana. Hon’ble Justice M.M. Sundresh subsequently addressed the audience ex tempore, referring to the same subject through the lens of the Kamba Ramayanam. At the conclusion of his address, the Hon’ble Justice generously acknowledged the petitioner’s efforts in filing numerous Public Interest Litigations, grounded in thorough research, which warrant the earnest attention of this Hon’ble Court. In light of this, the petitioner submits with utmost concern that the impugned order contains adverse references against him without affording him an opportunity to present his case, thereby infringing the principles of natural justice and causing irreparable prejudice. (P1-41)

3. Detailed Research Undertaken: The writ petition was filed along with comprehensive material, including: (P12: Pg. no. 115-132), (Appendex-23-39)

i. 20 video conference links containing discussions and evidence; (P3: Pg. no. 69-70)

ii. Summarized research articles on the functioning of the Election Commission post-2019; (P11: Pg. no. 102-114)

iii. Extracts from the opinions of retired Chief Election Commissioners, debates of the Constituent Assembly, and landmark judgments of this Hon’ble Court, including the latest judgments/interim orders in the Bihar matter; (P10: Pg. no. 95-101)
iv. A consolidated appraisal of the issues, incorporating expert opinions both in support of and critical of the present system, highlighting the urgent need for reforms to restore public confidence in the independence of the Election Commission and calling for judicial intervention similar to that undertaken by this Hon’ble Court in Bihar. (P12: Pg. no. 115-132)
4. Proceedings before the Hon’ble Chief Justice’s Bench

a. When the matter was taken up, the Hon’ble Chief Justice was informed that this was a PIL seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Election Commission to ensure transparency in line with the objectives of Article 324 of the Constitution, which safeguards the fundamental rights of voters and the basic features of the Constitution.

b. The Hon’ble Chief Justice, however, observed at the outset that the Petitioner should either withdraw the petition or be ready for an adverse order. Within minutes, and without granting the Petitioner an opportunity of being fully heard, the writ petition was dismissed in open court.

c. Findings in the Impugned Order: (Pg. No. 1-6)

Para 3: The petition lacks concrete material and only refers to allegations, counter-allegations made on certain platform. The petition only reproduces those allegations, without there being any independent research. It seeks this court to make roving enquiry. With the present content and form, it is vague, lacks material details and particulars

Para 5: Writ petition is misconceived and, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only] payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within one month
5. Grounds of Challenge / Reliefs Sought: The Petitioner is aggrieved by the arbitrary and disproportionate imposition of costs and the refusal to consider the substantive issues raised in the writ petition despite the detailed research and evidence placed on record. Accordingly, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: )Pg. No. 11-14)

a. Set aside the portion of the Impugned Order imposing costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), which is manifestly arbitrary, reflects non-application of judicial mind, and has arisen solely from the refusal to hear the Petitioner on merits even for few minutes

b. Allow the prayer made in the writ petition, since the matter concerns the Basic structure of the Constitution and affects the democratic rights of more than a billion citizens of India.

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

DATE EVENTS
2019 Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamalnath vs ECI on the issue of voter manipulation and the need for transparent functioning

2023 The Constitutional Bench led by Justice Joseph deliberated the issues concerning the appointment of CEC and other top officials with focus on independent functioning of this most important institution for protecting the democracy of our Country.
2023 Enactment of provisions removing the CJI from the selection committee making ECI a dependent body of the executive

2023 Enactment of provisions providing absolute immunity to the CEC

June 2024 The 18th Lok Sabha elections were held. The BJP-led NDA coalition formed the government.

July 2024 CSDS report on Maharashtra elections which gave an impression that the elections were not held in a free and fair manner

August 2025 Hon’ble Leader of the Opposition, Shri Rahul Gandhi, held a press conference presenting allegations supported by documentary evidence of large-scale voter list manipulation and election rigging by the ECI in favour of the BJP-led NDA Government
August 2025 The entire Opposition bloc of 300 Members of Parliament marched towards the ECI headquarters in protest and were taken into custody by the police.
August 2025 The ECI issued a formal notice to Shri Rahul Gandhi, directing him to submit evidence for his allegations. Similar notices and actions were undertaken in Maharashtra and Haryana.
August 2025 Leading national media outlets commenced independent verification of the allegations, with several reports substantiating portions of the claims.
August 2025 Hon’ble Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Shri Anurag Thakur, in a media briefing, made serious allegations regarding the prevalence of fake voters and the ECI’s incompetent conduct of the 2024 elections thereby corroborating the position and claims earlier made by Shri Rahul Gandhi.
August 2025 The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the ECI to publish details of 65 lakh voters whose names were deleted, along with the reasons for each deletion a direction directly supporting the relief sought in the present Writ Petition (PIL).
August 2025 WP.34108 of 2025 was filed before the Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court
September 2025 The Writ Petition 34108 of 2025 was dismissed imposing cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
September 2025 The Hon’ble Leader of opposition Mr. Rahul Gandhi made another convincing presentation about some top officials in ECI indulging in deletion of voters in a scandalous manner which is also confirmed by admission of CEC about filing FIR which is a very serious matter of concern needing the intervention of this Hon’ble Apex Court the Guardian Angel of Protector of Our Constitution
23-09-2025 Hence the present Special Leave Petition

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2025
WITH
(PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

Arising from the impugned order and judgement dated 09-09-2025 passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ bearing No. 34108 of 2025, WMP No. 38263 of 2025
In the Matter of WP. No. 34108 of 2025
POSITION OF PARTIES High Court In this Hon’ble Court
Adv.(CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar
No.10/11, Dr. Subbarayan Nagar Main Road, Kodambakkam,
Chennai – 600024
Petitioner
Petitioner
Versus
The Election Commission of India,
Represented by the Chief Election Commissioner, Nirvachan Sadan,
New Delhi
1st Respondent
1st Respondent
Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice,
Room No. 441, A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110 001.
2nd Respondent
2nd Respondent
Indian National Congress
AICC Hq, Indira Bhawan, 9A Kotla Marg, New Delhi – 110002
3rd Respondent
3rd Respondent
Bharatiya Janata Party
Central Office
6 A, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,
New Delhi – 110002
4th Respondent
4th Respondent
In the Matter of WMP. No. 38263 of 2025
POSITION OF PARTIES High Court In this Hon’ble Court
Adv.(CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar
No.10/11, Dr. Subbarayan Nagar Main Road, Kodambakkam,
Chennai – 600024
Petitioner
Petitioner
The Election Commission of India,
Represented by the Chief Election Commissioner, Nirvachan Sadan,
New Delhi
1st Respondent
1st Respondent
Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice,
Room No. 441, A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110 001.
2nd Respondent
2nd Respondent
Indian National Congress
AICC Hq, Indira Bhawan, 9A Kotla Marg, New Delhi – 110002
3rd Respondent
3rd Respondent
Bharatiya Janata Party
Central Office
6 A, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,
New Delhi – 110002
4th Respondent
4th Respondent

To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and His Hon’ble Companion Justice of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

The Humble Petition of the Petitioner above named

I. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. The Petitioner respectfully submits that this present Special Leave Petition is filed against the common final order dated 09-09-2025 (Common Impugned Order) passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 34108 of 2025, WMP. No. 38263 of 2025 seeking judicial intervention by giving directions to the 1st Respondent for the reasons mentioned with evidence in the Writ Petition to ensure that the 1st Respondent to act in accordance with the roll envisaged by our founding fathers while enacting Article 324 of the Constitution and later by this Hon’ble Apex Court in series of landmark judgments to reassure the common man that his precious voting rights are secured. (Pg. no. 1-6)

2. The Petitioner states that no other matter has been filed by him against the Impugned Judgement and the final order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 34108 of 2025, WMP. No. 38263 of 2025.

II. QUESTION OF LAW
The Petitioner respectfully submits that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration by this Hon’ble Apex Court:

i. Whether the summary dismissal of a constitutionally significant Public Interest Litigation, without examining the material placed on record or offering a reasoned decision, violates the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
ii. Whether the imposition of ₹1,00,000/- as costs on a bona fide PIL petitioner, in the absence of any finding of mala fides, political motive, or abuse of process, amounts to an arbitrary and unconstitutional exercise of judicial discretion?
iii. Whether the Election Commission of India’s refusal to disclose voter turnout and Form 17C data in machine-readable format, and destruction of CCTV footage
within 45 days citing ‘privacy’ grounds, violates the citizen’s right to information and democratic participation under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution? (P11: Pg. no. 106-113)(Appendix –Pg. no. 34-35)

iv. Whether the High Court erred in relying upon the decision of this Hon’ble Court in Kamal Nath v. Election Commission of India (2019), without considering subsequent constitutional and statutory developments, including the 2023 Constitution Bench judgment on the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner? Which has been totally diluted in favor of the executive and by the 2nd Respondent raises serious concerns of independence. (Appendix:Pg. no. 23-29)

v. Whether the High Court’s failure to consider binding or persuasive precedents from other High Courts and this Hon’ble Apex Court in BIHAR SIR (e.g., Social Initiative for Rights v. ECI, Patna High Court) renders the judgment per incurium. (P10: Pg.no. 95-101)

III. A DECLARATION IN TERMS OF ORDER XXI, RULE 3(2)

That the Petitioner in Person has not filed any other Petition or Appeal challenging the impugned final order dated 09-09-2025 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court in the matter of Writ Petition No. 34108 of 2025, WMP. No. 38263 of 2025

IV. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULES 5:

The Annexure P1-P13 (SLP) produced along with Special Leave Petition are true copies of the pleadings /documents which formed part of the records of the case in the court below against whose order the instant Petition is being filed.

V. GROUNDS

The Appellant is aggrieved by the Impugned Order on the grounds mentioned below, which are necessary and without prejudice and alternate to each other:

1. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Madras High Court displayed disinclination to hear the matter from the outset, even threatening to impose costs at the preliminary stage.

Facts: Despite the filing of a detailed and well-researched PIL supported by expert materials, the petition was dismissed with sweeping observations that it was based on “political statements” and that “no research was done,” branding it as misconceived. This denial of opportunity to present arguments and evidence violates Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to fair hearing). The principle of audi alteram partem stands violated. (Pg. no:1- 6)

Precedents: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150) – natural justice is part of Article 14; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978 AIR 851) – fairness is integral to electoral adjudication; State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010 3 SCC 402) – bona fide PILs must be encouraged.

2. BECAUSE the Hon’ble Chief Justice concluded that no research was done while dismissing the petition by threatening of imposing costs at the outset and failed to appreciate the substantive evidence annexed 20 video links with summaries, articles, and interviews of former CECs, retired SC judges, and constitutional scholars, along with reports in The Hindu, The Wire, excerpts from Constituent Assembly debates on electoral transparency, and binding precedents of this Court. The impugned order is manifestly arbitrary, substantively unreasonable, and a non-speaking order, violating the judicial duty to provide reasons.(P3 –P9 )
Precedents: Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010 9 SCC 496) – reasoned orders are mandatory, especially in PILs; Union of India v. M.L. Capoor (AIR 1974 SC 87) – non-application of mind renders an order invalid. (Pg.no. 69-94)

3. BECAUSE despite no allegation of malice, political motive, or abuse of process being made against the Petitioner, the Hon’ble High Court imposed punitive costs of ₹1 lakh. The PIL raised constitutional concerns supported by credible material. Imposition of disproportionate and unexplained costs violates Article 14 and chills the exercise of Article 19(1)(a), deterring honest civic participation in democratic processes. (P10-P12, Pg. No. 95-132)
Precedents: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2011 1 SCC 560) – costs in PILs must be justified; State of UP v. Raj Narain (1975 AIR 865) – citizens have the right to demand electoral accountability.

4. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider the Patna High Court judgment in Social Initiative for Rights v. ECI, where similar relief was granted by directing ECI to publish turnout data in machine-readable format. The impugned order neither mentioned nor distinguished this coordinate bench decision, rendering it per incurium and violating consistency in judicial decision-making.

Precedents: Sub-Inspector Rooplal v. Lt. Governor (2000 1 SCC 644) – coordinate benches must follow earlier rulings or refer to a larger bench; M.S. Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978 AIR 851) – EC must act within constitutional limits and remain transparent. (P10: Pg.no. 95-101)

5. BECAUSE reliance placed on Kamal Nath v. ECI (2019) was misplaced, as that precedent has no application in the present, changed circumstances. Blind application of outdated precedent amounts to an error apparent, rendering the decision unsustainable. (Appendix – Pg.no. 30-39)

Precedents: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017 10 SCC 1) – past judgments must be revisited when legal/technological contexts evolve; Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989 AIR 1933) – law must adapt to changing realities.

6. BECAUSE the Petitioner highlighted ECI’s coercive conduct—such as notices to Rahul Gandhi threatening penal consequences, FIRs against a CSDS scholar (later stayed by this Hon’ble Court with commendation of his integrity), special treatment afforded to a Union Minister, and refusal to respond to CSDS findings on discrepancies in Maharashtra turnout data. These raise serious constitutional issues of Article 19(1)(a) violations and chilling effect on democratic participation. The High Court failed to consider these aspects. (P11: Pg. No.104-114)

Precedents: Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950 SCR 594) – free speech includes criticism of institutions; Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018 10 SCC 1) – State action cannot suppress honest civic participation.

7. BECAUSE of the perfunctory manner in which the CEC dismissed serious allegations such as voter deletions and manipulation linked to external influence without providing information sought by the Karnataka CID. This establishes manifest arbitrariness and necessitates immediate intervention of this Hon’ble Apex Court. (P13: Pg.No.133-149)

VI. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
1. Because the impugned order imposes arbitrary costs without considering material evidence or legal precedents, thus violating Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21.

2. Because the recovery of costs would cause undue financial and reputational harm to the Petitioner, a bona fide litigant pursuing constitutional concerns in public interest.

3. Because granting interim relief preserves the status quo and prevents unjust enrichment of the State, while allowing this Court to adjudicate the constitutional issues raised in the present petition.

4. Because the matter concerns the independence of the Election Commission and transparency in electoral processes, impacting over a billion citizens. Arbitrary penalization of a public-spirited litigant will discourage civic participation and weaken democratic accountability

VII. MAIN PRAYER:
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously pleased to
i. Grant the Special Leave Petition against the Impugned Judgment and final order dated 09-09-2025 passed by this Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court in 34108 of 2025, WMP. No. 38263 of 2025.

ii. Pass any other order or further orders as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

VIII. INTERIM RELIEF:

a) Grant ad interim ex-parte stay of the operation of the Para 5 of the Impugned order: Writ petition is misconceived and, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only] payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within one month. Consequently, interim application stands closed.

b) Pass such other and further orders that Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

Drawn on: 20-09-2025
Filed on: 23-09-2025

Adv. (CA) V.VENKATA SIVAKUMAR

Petitioner-in-Person

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2025
(Against the Impugned Judgement and Final order dated 09-09-2025 passed the Hon’ble Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court in 34108 of 2025, WMP. No. 38263 of 2025.

IN THE MATTER OF:
Adv.(CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar
……Appellant
VERSUS

The Election Commission of India,
Represented by the Chief Election Commissioner
And others etc etc.
…..Respondents
C E R T I F I C A T E
Certified that the civil appeal is confined only to the pleadings before the court whose order is challenged and the other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition except Annexures It is further certified that the copies of the documents / annexure attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to answer the questions of law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble Court. This certificate is given by the Petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the SLP.
Filed by:

Adv(CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar
Petitioner in Person
Place: New Delhi
Date: 23-09-2025

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:
Adv.(CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar
……Petitioner
VERSUS

The Election Commission of India,
Represented by the Chief Election Commissioner
And others etc etc.
…..Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Adv. (CA) V. Venkata Sivakumar, S/o Late VS Gandhi residing at No.10/11, Dr. Subbarayan Nagar Main Road, Near Samiyarmadam, Kodambakkam, Chennai -24, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above Special Leave Petition and I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and hence competent to swear this affidavit.
2. I have read and understood the contents of the Special Leave Petition at Pages and Synopsis and List of Dates at Pages to and I say that the contents thereof are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and the legal submissions are based on the advice received from my Counsel which I believe to be true.
3. That, I have read and understood the contents of Interlocutory Applications and that the contents thereof are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
4. That the Annexures filed with the Special Leave Petition are true and correct copies of the originals.
5. That I have not filed any other Special Leave Petition in this Hon’ble Court against the Impugned Judgment and order.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents made in Para Nos. 1 to 5 of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Nothing material has been concealed there from.

Verified by me on this 23rd day of September 2025.

DEPONENT