High Court Cannot Direct Authorities to Form or Implement New Policy: Madras HC Dismisses PIL Seeking SMS Confirmation After Casting Vote, with Election Process Already Underway [Read Order]

Chennai: The High Court of Judicature at Madras has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India to implement an SMS confirmation system for voters immediately after casting their votes in elections to the State Assembly and Parliament.

The Court held that it cannot issue a direction to the authorities to frame or implement a new policy and that any such direction at this stage would interrupt or protract the ongoing election proceedings.

The order was passed on 10.04.2026 by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan in WP No. 13764 of 2026.

The petitioner submitted that an instant SMS be sent to a voter’s registered mobile number immediately after casting a vote, which, he argued, would help detect impersonation, prevent bogus voting, and enhance confidence in the electoral process. He had sent representations to this effect to the concerned authorities in March 2024 and January 2025, neither of which received any response, prompting the writ petition.

The Court found that, in effect, the petition sought to compel a policy decision in a particular manner. Since the election process for the 2026 elections had already commenced with the issuance of the election notification, any judicial intervention to introduce a new procedure mid-process would necessarily interrupt or protract the ongoing election proceedings.

On the broader principle, the Court reiterated that a High Court cannot direct the executive to frame or implement a new policy, as that is a matter for the authority to consider on its own merits in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and the interim application was closed.

The Court, however, clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the representations sent by the petitioner and left it open to the Election Commission to consider the proposal on its own merits, if so advised, for future elections.

For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Vedhavel, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, Advocate

Case Title: K.R. Kukesh v. Election Commission of India and Anr., WP No. 13764 of 2026

[Read Order]