Judicial Process and Accountability: Justices Maheshwari and Bishnoi Order Re-hearing Before Separate Apex Bench
In an unexpected legal twist modifying the timelines of long-pending electoral jurisprudence, two sitting judges of the **Supreme Court of India** formally withdrew from delivering the final verdict in the high-profile 2011 Kolathur Legislative Assembly election dispute case. Supreme Court Justices **J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi** officially recused themselves from the civil appeal on May 15, 2026, ordering that the entire litigation matter be reheard fresh before another bench where neither of them serves as a member.
The Material Particulars and Legal Threshold Challenges
The decade-long legal battle traces back to deep procedural disagreements regarding the presentation of digital evidence and statutory election rules:
- The Corrupt Practices Accusation: The case stems from a long-standing petition filed by AIADMK leader **Saidai S. Duraisamy**, who formally accused DMK leader **M.K. Stalin** of deploying unauthorized monetary incentives, distribution wheels, and community-feeding schemes to corruptly influence electors ahead of the volatile 2011 Assembly polls in Chennai's Kolathur constituency.
- Section 123 Statutory Benchmarks: Under the strict boundaries of election law, any official charge involving bribery or candidate-backed voter inducement falls under **Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951**. The Supreme Court reinforced that such corrupt practice allegations carry quasi-criminal liabilities and must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than depending on a mere preponderance of probabilities.
- The Section 65B Digital Certificate Lockout: Highlighting why the case has stalled since its entry into the apex court back in 2017, historical records show the **Madras High Court had dismissed Duraisamy's petition in 2017** due to a lack of conclusive physical proof and the total **absence of a valid electronic evidence certification mandated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act**, invalidating the audio-visual recordings relied upon by the petitioner.
For TNPSC and Indian Polity candidates, this recusal and the underlying election petition parameters serve as an essential study focus under 'Electoral Reforms, The Representation of the People Act 1951, Section 123 Malpractices, and the Powers of the Higher Judiciary'.