The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against an Australian citizen holding an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card after authorities allegedly mistook him for another voter based on traces of indelible ink found on his finger.

The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan quashed the FIR registered against Chandirasekar in connection with alleged illegal voting during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, observing that there was no material to establish that he had cast the vote attributed to him in the Virugambakkam Assembly constituency.

The Court found that authorities had “mechanically presumed” that the petitioner and another voter with a similar name were the same person.

“It is also seen that the second respondent... mechanically presumed that the name of Chandrasekaran Ragupathi, i.e., the person who cast his vote in the 22-Virugampakkam Assembly Constituency, and the name of the petitioner, i.e., Chandrasekhar Ragupathy, are one and the same,” the Court observed.

Chandirasekar is an Australian citizen holding an Australian passport and an OCI card. His parents are Indian citizens. He had arrived in India on March 17 and was scheduled to return to Australia on May 13.

However, while he was at Chennai International Airport preparing to board his flight, immigration officials noticed traces of indelible ink on his left index finger. This raised suspicion that he had voted in the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.

Since an OCI card does not confer voting rights in India on a foreign citizen, an FIR was subsequently registered against him for alleged offences of cheating, impersonation and forgery under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with an offence under the Representation of the People Act relating to making or furnishing false statements.

The prosecution alleged that Chandirasekar had cast his vote at Avichi Higher Secondary School in Saligramam, which falls within the Virugambakkam Assembly constituency.

Chandirasekar, however, denied having voted and submitted that on April 23, the date on which the alleged voting took place, he was at his sister’s residence in Tiruchirappalli. He also claimed to have CCTV footage supporting his version.

The High Court found discrepancies in the prosecution's case. It noted that although Chandirasekar possessed a voter ID card associated with the Erode constituency, he had allegedly been accused of voting in Virugambakkam.

“If the petitioner possessed a Voter ID card for the Erode Constituency, he could not have voted in the 22-Virugampakkam Assembly Constituency,” the Court observed.

The police had also sought CCTV footage from the Chennai polling station where the alleged vote was cast. However, the request for the footage remained pending.

The Court ultimately found no material establishing that Chandirasekar had impersonated another voter, cast a vote illegally or made false declarations.

“Further only on the statement recorded from the petitioner, the second respondent lodged complaint... There is no material to show that he cast his vote at 22-Virugampakkam assembly constituency,” the Court held.

Finding that continuing the investigation would serve no useful purpose, the High Court quashed the FIR.

Advocate Vikram Veerasamy appeared for Chandirasekar, while Government Advocate M Dinesh represented the State.