O. Panneerselvam seeks Madras High Court’s permission to withdraw election petition against Ramanathapuram MP Navas Kani

Former Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam, who recently joined the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has filed an application before the Madras High Court seeking leave to withdraw an election petition filed by him in 2024 challenging the victory of Ramanathapuram Lok Sabha member K. Navas Kani of Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), an ally of the DMK.

Justice CV. Karthikeyan on Tuesday directed the applicant to include the Election Commission of India (ECI) as one of the respondents to the plea. He directed the Registry to list the leave application again after the necessary amendments get carried out by the applicant’s counsel P. Rajalakshmi.

After his expulsion from the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) in 2022 due to differences with its general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami, Mr. Panneerselvam had contested the Lok Sabha election from Ramanathapuram constituency as an independent candidate supported by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Then, the ECI had allotted him ‘jackfruit’ symbol.

Interestingly, five other independent candidates with the name Panneerselvam contested in Ramanathapuram in 2024 thereby creating an apprehension of great confusion being caused among the voters while exercising their franchise. Further, AIADMK candidate Jayaperumal was also in the fray in the constituency and he had contested under the party’s ‘two leaves’ symbol.

When the votes were counted on June 4, 2024, Mr. Kani was declared elected by a huge margin of 1.66 lakh votes. He had secured 5,09,664 votes as against 3,42,882 votes polled by his nearest rival Mr. Panneerselvam. The AIADMK candidate had polled just 99,780 votes. Thereafter, the former Chief Minister chose to challenge the victory by way of an election petition.

What did the election petition say?

He had filed the election petition on multiple grounds including suppression of facts in the election affidavit filed by the elected candidate. The MP was accused of not having disclosed in his election affidavit that he was the director in S.T. Couriers Private Limited, Madras Media Private Limited and Pelita Nasi Kandar Private Limited and also the remuneration he was receiving from those enterprises.

The election petitioner had also wondered how the MP could have obtained a loan of ₹91.75 lakh from his son, as claimed in the election affidavit filed along with the nomination papers, when the latter’s income in the last five years was only around ₹20 lakh. Therefore, Mr. Panneerselvam had urged the High Court to set aside the election of Mr. Kani on the ground of having submitted a false declaration.

Though the MP filed an application in 2024 to reject the election petition without making him undergo the ordeal of facing the trial proceedings, Justice Karthikeyan had dismissed that application in April 2025 after observing the veracity of the allegations regarding suppression of facts, in the election affidavit, could be ascertained only after conducting a full fledged trial.

“The parties must be granted an opportunity to put forward their views by gracing the witness box. It would not be an exercise in futility (as claimed by the MP in his plea to reject the election petition at the threshold) but rather it would be a venture to discover the correct facts,” the judge had observed.

Then, the judge had also said, the genuineness of the allegations levelled agains the MP could be found out only on analysis of oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by both sides during the course of trial. He observed the MP could produce evidence to disprove the allegations, instead of seeking to reject the election petition in limine.