The court said there was no material to prove large-scale violations, poll-related irregularities, booth capturing, rigging, bogus voting or any other exceptional and extraordinary circumstances to set aside the elections and entertain the petitions.
The claim that violation of an October 14 last order of a Division Bench to the authorities concerned to provide video recording in all polling booths would result in automatic invalidation of the election was 'unacceptable', a division bench comprising justices D Murugesan and K K Sasidharan said.
It said the court's direction regarding video coverage had been substantially complied with, barring a few booths.
While testing the validity of an election, the court should insist on primary material and mere statements alone were not sufficient, the judges said holding that 'In a democracy, the will of the people is supreme. Mandate given by the people cannot be set aside without adequate reasons'.
The six petitioners, including one by DMK's legal wing secretary R S Bharathi, challenged the elections primarily on the ground that the returning officer had failed to provide video coverage in all booths.
The petitioners wanted the elections to be set aside on the basis of their self-serving statements in their respective affidavits and earlier representations submitted to the State Election Commission, the judges said and pointed out that none of the petitions contained at least prima facie material setting out the cause of action for filing petitions in an election matter. PTI GR VS