Judicial Insight
Back to feed
IndiaCivil

V. Pon. Paneerselvam vs S. Regupathy

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
Oct 7, 2026
Citation
2026 INSC 1092
Judges
Prashant Kumar Mishra, Shree Chandrashekhar

AI breakdown

  • The dispute is whether election petitions must be personally filed by the petitioner under the RP Act.
  • The court decided that petitions not personally filed by the petitioner must be dismissed.
  • This was based on strict interpretation of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act.

Parties

  • Applicant

    V. Pon. Paneerselvam

  • Respondent

    S. Regupathy

Judgment text (excerpt)
V. Pon. Paneerselvam vs S. Regupathy on 7 October, 2026 Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra 2026 INSC 1092 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.30538 OF 2026 V. PON. PANEERSELVAM ….PETITIONER(S) VERSUS S. REGUPATHY AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1) The question arising in the present petition is whether presentation of an election petition by the petitioner in person is a mandatory requirement under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 19511, and whether non-compliance with such a requirement, if any, renders the election petition liable to dismissal at the threshold under Section 86(1) of the RP Act. 2) The lis stems from an election petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 80, 80A, 81, 83,100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i) & (iv) read with Section 123(2) of the RP Act and Rule 2 of the Rules of the Madras High Court Election Petitions, 1967 r/w Order II Rule 3 of the Rules of the High Court, Madras Original Side,1994, seeking the following reliefs : A. To declare the election of the Respondent No.1, Mr. S. Regupathy from 181- Thirumayam Assembly Constituency in the 2026 Tamil Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NISHA KHULBEY Date: 2026.10.07 Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections declared on 04.05.2026 as 17:02:31 IST Reason: 1 For short, ‘RP Act’ SLP (C) No.30538/2026 Page 1 of 11 null and void under Section 100(1)(b) and Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the RP Act; B. To hold that the Responden…
Read the full judgmentpowered by IKanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org). Indian court judgments are public records; the summary and translations are AI-generated.