Court finds no evidence linking OCI cardholder to alleged vote in Virugambakkam after ink mark raised suspicion at Chennai airport
The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR against an Australian citizen and Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder who was accused of illegally voting in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections after immigration officials noticed indelible ink on his finger at Chennai airport.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan granted relief to Chandirasekar, holding that there was no material evidence to establish that he had cast the vote attributed to him in the Virugambakkam Assembly constituency. The court also found discrepancies in the authorities’ identification of the accused.
Chandirasekar, who holds an Australian passport and an OCI card, arrived in India on March 17 and was scheduled to return to Australia on May 13. His parents are Indian citizens.
-
While he was preparing to board his flight from Chennai, immigration officials noticed traces of indelible ink on his left index finger
-
This led to suspicion that he had voted in the Tamil Nadu election, despite being an Australian citizen and therefore not eligible to vote in India solely on the basis of an OCI card
An FIR was subsequently registered under provisions relating to cheating, impersonation and forgery under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with an offence under the Representation of the People Act concerning false statements.
The prosecution alleged that Chandirasekar had voted at Avichi Higher Secondary School in Saligramam, within the Virugambakkam constituency. He denied the allegation, stating that on April 23, the date of the alleged vote, he was at his sister’s residence in Tiruchirappalli. He also referred to CCTV footage supporting his claim.
The High Court noted that Chandirasekar’s voter ID was linked to the Erode constituency, while the alleged vote was recorded in Virugambakkam. The court also observed that officials had apparently assumed that Chandirasekar was the same person as another voter with a similar name.
With no evidence establishing that he had cast the disputed vote, the court concluded that continuing the investigation would serve no useful purpose and quashed the FIR.
