In unexpected twist, both judges on SC Bench withdraw from delivering verdict in 2011 Duraisamy-Stalin election dispute

A Supreme Court Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi have both recused themselves from a case filed by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) leader Saidai S. Duraisamy against former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin accusing the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader of “corrupt practices” ahead of the 2011 Assembly election to the Kolathur constituency. The withdrawal of the two judges was quite unexpected as the appeal was extensively heard by the Bench across several days in January and February, before being reserved on February 19 for judgment. Though the case had been pending since 2017 in the Supreme Court, it had started getting regularly listed for hearing towards the end of September 2025, and through the initial two months of 2026 until it was reserved for verdict. The listing of the case from September 2025 was after a three-year gap since 2022. The appeal had come up before Justice Surya Kant (as he was then) on September 19, before it was shifted to a Bench headed by Justice Maheshwari for the first time on September 25, 2025. In a short order dated May 15, but circulated in the public domain on Thursday (May 21, 2026), the Bench recorded that the judges had “released” the appeal to be listed before another Bench in which neither of them should be made members. “The matter is released and be listed for re-hearing before a Bench of which none of us [J.K. Maheshwari, J. and Vijay Bishnoi, J.] is a member after obtaining appropriate orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India,” the order said. The court is moving into summer recess by end of May. June would be partial working days for the Supreme Court. Justice Maheshwari is also scheduled to retire next month, on June 28. Duraisamy, in his appeal, had alleged that the DMK party used its functionaries and money power to lure voters in favour in innovative ways, amounting to corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act. Stalin had countered that the allegations were baseless. Mr. Duraisamy had no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the DMK leader. Senior advocate Kappil Sibal, for the former CM, had argued that a mere “preponderance of probabilities” would not drive home a charge of corrupt practice, including bribery of electors to vote in favour of a candidate under Section 123 of the 1951 Act. The Madras High Court had dismissed the allegations raised by Mr. Duraisamy for lack of conclusive evidence in 2017. It had found that certain CDs (compact discs) brought forth by Mr. Duraisamy did not even comply with the “basic” requirement of a Section 65B certification. The provision mandates a certificate verifying the authenticity, integrity and source of a digital data before admitting it as evidence in court. Duraisamy had contended that the DMK party had used the “’Thirumangalam Formula”’ to provide money to voters in a novel way, through community feeding events, courier services, currency kept in newspapers, aarathi plate contributions, and slips to purchase consumer items, etc. A goods vehicle had been caught with boxes of currency. However, the averments had not impressed the High Court, which came to the conclusion that there was “no categorical averment that the 1st respondent (Mr. Stalin) had given his consent to his party functionaries to bribe the voters and self-help group members with a view to attract a misdeed of ‘corrupt practice”.