DMK Boycotts EVM Verification in Kolathur, Alleges Lapses; Legal Battle Looms
The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has intensified its challenge to the electoral process in Tamil Nadu by boycotting the ongoing verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) used in the Kolathur Assembly constituency. The party has alleged serious procedural lapses during the verification exercise and announced that it will approach the courts to seek judicial intervention. The dispute has added a new chapter to the post-election political contest in the state.
Kolathur has remained under political scrutiny since the recent Assembly election, where former Chief Minister and DMK president M.K. Stalin was defeated by TVK candidate V.S. Babu by a margin of 8,795 votes. Following the result, the DMK sought verification of EVMs and VVPAT units from 14 polling stations after raising concerns before the Election Commission regarding the conduct of polling and counting.
The latest controversy erupted during the verification process when DMK representatives objected to the address tag attached to the Control Unit (CU) from Booth No. 157. According to party leaders, the alleged discrepancy raised questions about the integrity of the verification exercise. The objections briefly halted the proceedings before election authorities resumed the process in the presence of Greater Chennai Corporation Commissioner and District Election Officer G.S. Sameeran, despite the DMK deciding to withdraw from further participation.
Senior DMK leader and counsel N.R. Elango stated that the party had lost confidence in the verification process, alleging that procedural safeguards were not being followed. He indicated that the party would seek legal remedies, arguing that transparency and strict adherence to election protocols are essential for maintaining public trust in the electoral system. However, the party has not publicly claimed that the alleged lapses conclusively prove manipulation of voting results.
Election officials have firmly rejected the allegations. District Election Officer G.S. Sameeran maintained that the verification was being conducted strictly in accordance with Election Commission guidelines and that the concerns raised by the DMK did not indicate any tampering or irregularity in the functioning of the EVMs. Authorities have reiterated that all statutory procedures were followed and that the verification process remains transparent.
The dispute is expected to move into the judicial arena, where the court may be asked to examine whether the verification process complied with prescribed legal and procedural requirements. While Indian courts have generally upheld the reliability of EVMs when Election Commission protocols are followed, they have also emphasized that electoral transparency must be beyond reproach. The outcome of any legal proceedings could influence future standards for post-election verification requests, particularly in closely contested constituencies.
The episode also carries wider political significance. Coming after a high-profile electoral defeat in one of Tamil Nadu’s most closely watched constituencies, the controversy is likely to fuel continued debate over electoral transparency, accountability and confidence in voting technology. Whether the courts order further scrutiny or uphold the existing verification process, the case is expected to become an important reference point in future election-related disputes in India.
