Sociology Project - Election Analysis of Tamil Nadu

A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY ON TAMILNADU LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS-2016, 2011, 2021
Submitted by
B. HAREESH KRISHNAN
Reg. No. BA0200016
NAVEEN M
Reg. No. BA0200029
NIVEDIDHA M A
Reg. No. BA0200032
Name of the Guide

Dr. HEMALATHA BHAT
Assistant Professor of Sociology
TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

(A State University established by Act No. 9 of 2012)
Tiruchirappalli
Tamil Nadu – 620 009
JULY – 2021
1|Page
Dr. HEMALATHA BHAT
Assistant Professor of Sociology
Tamil Nadu National Law University
Tiruchirappalli
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project work entitled “A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY

ON TAMILNADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS-2016, 2011, 2021” is
a Bonafede record of the research work done by B. Hareesh Krishnan, Nivedhidha
MA, Naveen. M under my supervision and guidance. It has not been submitted by
any other University for the award of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship,
or any other similar recognition.
Place: Tiruchirappalli
Date:
Signature of the Guide
2|Page
B. Hareesh Krishnan
Reg. No. BA0200016
NAVEEN M
Reg. No. BA0200029
NIVEDIDHA M A
Reg. No. BA0200032
I – B.A.LLB., (Hons.)
Tamil Nadu National Law University
Tiruchirappalli
DECLARATION
I, B. Hareesh Krishnan., do hereby declare that the project entitled “A

SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY ON TAMILNADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
ELECTIONS-2016, 2011, 2021” was submitted to Tamil Nadu National Law
University in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the award of degree in
undergraduate in law is a record of work done by me under the supervision of
Dr. Hemalatha Bhat, assistant professor of sociology, Tamil Nadu National Law
University and has not formed the basis for the award of any degree or diploma
or fellowship to any other candidate of any University.
Counter Signed Signature of the Candidate

Project Guide
3|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the outset, I take this opportunity to deeply thank Professor Dr. Hemalatha Bhat for
accepting my topic proposal and allowing me to do the research paper on this topic. Our
professor was very humble and available for the whole time of completing this paper and
helped in times of anxiety and torpidity and made this project to this current shape.
Secondly, I convey my deepest regards to the Vice-Chancellor Prof. Dr. V.S.

Elizabeth and the administrative staff of TNNLU who held the project in high esteem by
providing reliable information and authentic sources via TNNLU library remote access as I
couldn’t access the library offline due to the pandemic.
Thirdly, I would highly solicit and would never forget the timely contribution and
sacrifices by my parents, my brother and sister, and friends. Without their valuable advice
and supervision, this paper will not be in flying colors.
Finally, I thank that power above all of us and mechanize us for helping me in
completing the project. Words aren’t sufficient to acknowledge the exemplary contributions
of various people and all others who were involved in this project knowingly or
unknowingly.
Words are just words when it comes to showing my gratitude towards these people
who helped me either directly or indirectly in completing this project and helped me to
contribute my simplest part to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections Analytics by
successfully researching this topic.
4|Page
ABSTRACT:
“The ballot is stronger than the bullet”
Elections are an inseparable factor in the concept of Democracy and polity in modern times.
The fate of a society in terms of development, education, economy, social justice, and every
factor depends on this tool of democracy- Elections. This research paper is a sociological
approach towards the State Legislative Assembly Elections of Tamil Nadu held in the years
2011, 2016, and 2021. This research paper is an attempt to analyze every basic social element
involved in conducting an election and also provides statistics related to the elections and
compare them with the three years and interpret that qualitative data in hand to arrive at
conclusions. This research project also tends to focus on the candidates who had contested in
elections and their information in relevance to the assembly elections and data related to that
too. Thus, this is an attempt to cover all the sociological aspects in conducting, announcing,
and analyzing an assembly election in the state of Tamil Nadu.
INTRODUCTION:
The sociological study on elections has been an important factor in the tradition of voting
studies. Studying elections incorporate political institutions into sociology. The sociological
approach towards elections is a set of questions and the answers to them like who votes?
What is the voting pattern? And to find out if the voting pattern had changed with
constituencies or with the candidates. The two major distinctions in this research project
involve individual aspects by analyzing the candidates and the entire mass analysis by
comparing the constituencies with another and the same constituencies with that of previous
assembly elections. The basics of an election are the voters and the constituency. Thus, the
concept of constituencies and the history of the changing pattern and numbers of
constituencies in Tamil Nadu are all discussed in this paper with a special focus on reserved
constituencies. Thus, this research project is a complete sociological approach towards the
legislative assembly elections of Tamil Nadu state legislative assembly.
A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY ON TAMILNADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

ELECTIONS-2011
For the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections, TNLA-2011, the date for nominations
for the assembly elections commenced from 13 April 2011. The election was held in a single
5|Page
phase. The scrutiny of nominations was done by the election commission on 28 March 2011.
The last date for filing nominations of candidates was March 26, 2011, and the last date for
withdrawal of candidates was till 30 March 2011. The date of polling of elections was on13
April 2011. The result was released on 13 May 2011 and eventually, J.Jayalalithaa was sworn
in as the chief minister of Tamilnadu on 26th of May,2011

ELECTIONS-2016
The Fifteenth Legislative Assembly Election was conducted on May 16, 2016, for the 232
seats of the Legislative Assembly in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu (excluding Thanjavur and
Aravakurichi, which were held on October 26, 2016). The 14th legislative assembly election
was held on April 13, 2011, and its tenure would have normally ended on May 22, 2016. The
Election Commission of India (ECI) organized and conducted the election for the 16th
legislative assembly, which took place in a single phase on May 16, 2016.
The date for nominations for the assembly elections commenced from 22 April 2016 which
lasted till 29 April 2016. The Date for scrutiny of nominations was on 30 April 2016 and the
last date for withdrawal of candidatures was 2 May 2016. The date of polling of elections was
on 16 May 2021. The date of counting of votes was on 19 May 2021. The last date
before which the election would be completed would be of 21 May 2021.
POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTION IN TWO CONSTITUENCIES:
Following evidence of money being used to sway voters, the Election Commission today
decided to withdraw the announcement and hold elections "in due course of time" for two
Tamil Nadu Assembly seats, marking a first in Indian electoral history. Previously, the
Election Commission had postponed elections in the Aravakurichi and Thanjavur Assembly
seats on two separate occasions due to reports of large-scale distribution of money and gifts
to voters by candidates and political parties. The elections were originally scheduled for May
16 but were pushed back to May 23. On May 21, the Election Commission agreed to
reschedule the elections until June 13th. Nearly Rs 8 crores in cash have been recovered from
these two constituencies. Officials also found over 2,500 liters of booze, as well as presents
like silver, dhotis, and sarees that had been hidden during the searches. While polls are
usually canceled after proof of manipulation, muscle force, or booth capturing to influence
votes, this is the first time the poll board has recommended that polls be canceled because
voters were bribed. The Election Commission said it made the judgment after examining
6|Page
reports from observers, defensive backs of central observers, reports from the special teams
of investigators in the Aravakurichi and Thanjavur seats, and submissions from candidates.

ELECTIONS-2021
For the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections, TNLA-2021, the date for nominations
for the assembly elections commenced from 12 March 2021 which lasted till 19 March 2021.
The Date for scrutiny of nominations was on 20 March 2021 and the last date for withdrawal
of candidatures was 22 March 2021. The date of polling of elections was on 6 April 2021.
The date of counting of votes was on 2 May 2021. The last date before which the election
would be completed would be of 24 May 2021.
METHODOLOGY:
This project A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY ON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS

OF TAMIL NADU- 2011, 2016, 2021 is done using the doctrinal method of research. The
quantitative data regarding the elections, voters, and candidates were taken and analyzed. The
primary sources for the data include the election commission of India website, Tamil Nadu
legislative assembly website, and other government websites and their statistics, publications.
http://www.elections.tn.gov.in
http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in
were sources from which the data regarding the research paper were incorporated and
interpreted.
VOTER STATISTICS:
1. NUMBER OF VOTERS:
In the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections of 2021, the data related to the total
number of voters are as follow:
2. THE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS:
Apart from the Male, Female, and Third Gender Voters, these voters were also divided into
three categories: They were
7|Page
1) General Electors
2) Service Voters
3) Overseas Voters
The total no of eligible voters in the 2011 Tamil Nadu Legislative assembly elections was
47,115,846 out of which 36,886,226 votes were voted
General electors: A total of 36,818,311 general voters voted on TNLA-2011
Service Voters: A total of 67,915 service voters voted in TNLA-2011
Overseas Voters: (SOURCE WAS NOT FOUND FOR THE OVERSEAS VOTERS)
The total no of voters in the 2016 assembly elections was 5,82,01,687
General electors: 5,82,01,687 which had a difference of (increased by 22383376) when

compared to the assembly elections of 2011.
Service Voters: A total of 57,223 service voters voted
Overseas Voters: 3,773
The total no of voters in the 2021 assembly elections was 6,28,23,749
General electors: 6,27,47,653 which had a difference of (increased by 4535966) when

compared to the assembly elections of 2016.
Service Voters: 72,853
Overseas Voters: 3,243 which had a difference of (decreased by 530) when compared to the
assembly elections of 2016.
3. VOTER TURNOUT:
The Voter turnout is arrived at by looking at the total percentage of votes cast by the people.
In the Legislative Assembly elections of 2011, the total voter turnout was found to be 77.8%
which broke the voting percentage record of 76.57% in the 1967 election and became the
highest vote percentage in the history of Tamilnadu.
The District of Karur recorded the highest voter Turnout of 86.4%% in the entire state. The
District of Chennai recorded the Lowest Voters Turnout of 68.2% in the entire state.
8|Page
In the Legislative Assembly elections of 2016, the total voter turnout was found to be
4,35,59,808 that is 74.81% which had a 4% lesser than the assembly elections of 2011.
Dharmapuri district recorded the highest voter turnout of 85% in the entire state. The District
of Chennai recorded the Lowest voter Turnout of 55% in the entire state which had a
difference from the previous elections from its record of (13.2) % in 2011 assembly elections.
Karur district has come done by 80.50%, which is 5.9% less than the previous election.
In the Legislative Assembly elections of 2021, the total voter turnout was found to be
72.81% which had a 2% lesser than the assembly elections of 2016.
The District of Karur recorded the highest voter turnout of 83.92% in the entire state which
had escalated from its record of (3.42) % in the 2016 assembly elections.
The District of Chennai recorded the Lowest voter Turnout of 59.06% in the entire state
which had a difference from the previous elections from its record of (4.06) % in the 2016
assembly elections.
4. NUMBER OF VOTERS:
The data regarding the number of voters in the constituent assemblies were inferred and the
constituencies with the highest and lowest number of voters were studied.
In 2011, The Constituent assembly of Sholinganallur in Chengalpattu district had the highest
voting population in the entire state of Tamil Nadu. It had a total of 3,57,660 voters of which
the men voters were 1,82,597 in number and Women voters were of 1,75,043 and 20 third
gender voters.
The Kilvelur Constituent assembly had the lowest number of voters in the entire state of
Tamil Nadu. It had a total of 1,41,185 of which men voters were 70,836 in number and
women voters 69,843 in number and the voting population of the third gender was 0 in
number respectively.
In 2016, The Constituent assembly of Sholinganallur in Chengalpattu district has the

highest voting population in the entire state of Tamil Nadu. It has a total of 6,02,407 voters
of which the men voters were 3,02,772 in number and Women voters were 2,99,573 and 62
third gender voters.
The Kilvelur Constituent assembly in Nagapattinam district has the lowest number of
voters in the entire state of Tamil Nadu. It has a total of 1,63,370 voters of which men voters
9|Page
were 80,936 in number and women voters 82,434 in number and the voting population of the
third gender was 0 in number respectively.
In 2021, The Constituent assembly of Sholinganallur in Chengalpattu district has the highest
voting population in the entire state of Tamil Nadu. It has a total of 6,94,845 voters of
which the men voters were 3,48,262 in number and Women voters were of 3,46,476 and 107
third gender voters.
The Harbor Constituent assembly in Chennai district has the lowest number of voters in the
entire state of Tamil Nadu. It has a total of 1,76,272 voters of which men voters were 91,936
in number and women voters 84,281 in number and the voting population of the third gender
was 55 in number respectively.
5. NUMBER OF NOTA (none of the above)
The option of NOTA was first introduced in Tamil Nadu during the 2014 Parliamentary
Elections. Thus, there is no data for the number of votes on NOTA for the Legislative
Assembly Elections of 2011. This notum is the last button on the EVM machine.
In the 2016 Legislative Assembly elections, NOTA had a share of 1.3% of the total no. of
votes that were cast. The total number of votes on NOTA was 5,61,003 in number.
In the 2021 Legislative Assembly elections, NOTA had a share of 0.75% of the total no of
votes that were cast. The total number of votes on NOTA was 3,45,538 in number.
An interesting thing in this Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election of 2021 is that out of
234 constituencies in the state, 6 constituencies had a margin of winning vote difference
which was much lesser than the total number of votes on the NOTA. The data is as follow:
In the 2011 Assembly Elections, 25 constituencies had a margin of victory difference being
lesser than the votes on NOTA. Some of the Constituencies of,
 Ottapidaram, the total percentage share of NOTA votes was 1.63% while the
difference between the winning candidate of AIADMK and the runner up candidate of
Puthiya Tamilakam Party was just 0.31%
 Radha Puram, the vote share percentage of NOTA was 1.06% while the Winning
candidate from AIADMK had a difference of just 0.3% with the runner-up candidate
from DMK.
10 | P a g e
In the 2016 Assembly Elections, 25 constituencies had a margin of victory difference being
lesser than the votes on NOTA. Naam Tamilar Katchi (1.1%), MDMK (0.9), CPI (0.8), VCK
(0.8), CPI(M) (0.7), IUML (0.7), Tamil Manila Congress (0.5), and Puthiya Tamilagam (0.5)
were all ahead of NOTA just by a lesser difference of votes. Some of the Constituencies of,
 NOTA in Tamil Nadu varied from 1,025 in Kaatumannarkoil, where Viduthalai

Chiruthaigal Katchi's Tool. Thirumaavalavan was defeated by 87 votes.
 4,994 NOTA votes were recorded in Avadi, where AIADMK's Pandiarajan fought
back after leading for many rounds to win by 1,395 votes.
 M. Appavu of the DMK, who was running in Radhapuram, lost by 49 votes, with
1,821 NOTA votes.
In the 2021 Assembly Elections, the following Constituencies of
 Modakkurichi, the total no of votes on NOTA was 2342 while the runner up candidate
was short of just 281 votes for the winning position
 Thanks, the total no of votes on NOTA was 1159 while the runner up candidate was
short of just 370 votes for the winning position
 T. Nagar, the total no of votes on NOTA was 1617 while the runner-up candidate was
short of just 137 votes for the winning position.
 Neyveli, the total no of votes on NOTA was 1171 while the runner-up candidate was
 Krishnagiri, the total no of votes on NOTA was 1837 while the runner-up candidate
was short of just 794 votes for the winning position.
 Katpadi, the total no of votes on NOTA was 1889 while the runner-up candidate was
There are 16 constituencies in the 2021 legislative assembly elections where the
candidates from the major parties received votes much lesser than the NOTA.
NAME OF THE VOTES ON NOTA VOTERS SECURED BY

CONSTITUENCY MAJOR PARTIES
LESSER THAN NOTA
Anna Nagar 1,545 AMMK candidate-1,169

Chepauk 2,061 AMMK candidate- 1,873
Bargur 1,507 AMMK Candidate- 1,064
11 | P a g e
Egmore 1,176 DMDK Candidate- 1,293
Harbour 912 AMMK candidate- 775
Villivakkam 1,144 DMDK Candidate- 1094
Edappadi 1,547 MNM Candidate- 1109
*These were all data regarding the comparison of votes secured by a candidate from a major
party with that of NOTA in the legislative assembly elections of 2021.
6. THE NUMBER OF FIRST TIME VOTERS:
There was no source or data which directly mentioned the number of first-time voters for
TNLA-2011. So, the approximate number of first-time voters is interpreted in this research
paper by comparing the difference between the total number of valid votes in TNLA-2006
and TNLA-2011.
The total number of votes cast in 2006 was 32,991,555 which was 70% of the total valid
votes. From this data, we can conclude that the total number of valid votes in TNLA-2006
was 46,664,151
The total number of valid votes in the year 2011 was 47,115,846.
Now if we compare and find the difference between the two data given above, we get a total
of 4,51,695 which can be considered as the approximate number of first-time voters
The total number of newly enrolled electors in the final rolls for the Legislative
Assembly Elections in 2016 was 16,18,526 electors.
The total number of newly enrolled men electors in the final rolls for the Legislative
Assembly elections of 2016 7,78,504 was electors. The total number of newly enrolled
women electors in the final rolls for the Legislative Assembly elections of 2016 was 8,39,288
electors. The total number of newly enrolled third gender electors in the final rolls for the
Legislative Assembly elections of 2016 was 734 electors.
Only 2.72 percent of eligible voters in the 18-19 age group had been enlisted — despite the
need that 3.38 percent of the population be 18-19 years old, only 2.72 percent were on the
electoral registers as compared to the whole population.
12 | P a g e
The total number of newly enrolled electors in the final rolls for the Legislative Assembly
Elections in 2021 was 8,97,694 electors.
The total number of newly enrolled men electors in the final rolls for the Legislative
Assembly elections of 2021 was 4,80,953 electors. The total number of newly enrolled
women electors in the final rolls for the Legislative Assembly elections of 2021 was 4,16,423
electors, The total number of newly enrolled third gender electors in the final rolls for the
Legislative Assembly elections of 2021 was 318 electors.
7. THE NUMBER OF WOMEN VOTERS:
The total number of women voters in the legislative assembly elections of 2011 in Tamil
Nadu is 2,34,08,812 which is 296,828 less than the total number of men voters of 2,37,05,640
The women voter turnout in all the constituencies is found to be 78.51% which is 0.98%
more when compared to the voter turnout of men which is 77.53%.
In the legislative assembly Elections of 2011, the constituency with the higher number of
women voters are as follows:
NAME OF CONSTITUENCY NO OF WOMEN VOTERS

Shozhinganallur 1,66,781
Kaundampalayam 1,42,799
Mudhukulathur 1,26,470
And the constituency with the lower number of women voters are as follows:

Kilvelur 69,843
Gandharvakottai 72,283
Harbour 75,621
The district with the highest and lowest number of women voters are as follows
HIGHEST LOWEST
Chennai Ariyalur
15,09,571 2,15,490
13 | P a g e
Nadu is 29106485 which is 470491 more than the total number of men voters of 2,88,63,013.
The women voter turnout in all the constituencies is found to be 77.77% which is
3.69% more when compared to the voter turnout of men which is 74.08%
In the legislative assembly Elections of 2016, the constituency with a higher number of
women voters are as follows:
Kaundampalayam 2,04,541
Mudhukulathur 1,98,089
And the constituency with the lower number of women voters are as follows:
Kilvelur 82,434
Harbour 89,392
Vedaranyam 61,369
The district with the highest and lowest number of women voters are as follows
HIGHEST LOWEST
Chennai Ariyalur
20,07,198 2,51,211
In the legislative assembly Elections of 2016, the constituency with the higher number
of voter turnout of women voters are as follows:
Avadi 1,30,901
Madhavaram 1,29,832
And the constituency with the lower number of voter turnout women voters are as follows:
Harbour 46,622
Egmore 58,111
14 | P a g e
Royapuram 59,438
The district with the highest and lowest voter turnout of women voters are as follows
HIGHEST LOWEST
Chennai Nilgiris
12,41,292 201850
Nadu is 2,31,71,736 which is 5,68,580 more than the total number of men voters of
2,26,03,156.
The women voter turnout in all the constituencies is found to be 72.55% which is 0.54%
lesser when compared to the voter turnout of men which is 73.09%.
In the legislative Assembly Elections of 2021, the constituencies where the voter turnout of
Women was higher than that of men are as follow,
NAME OF THE WOMEN VOTERS PERCENTAGE

CONSTITUENT TURNOUT (in %) DIFFERENCE
ASSEMBLY BETWEEN WOMEN
AND MEN VOTERS
TURNOUT
Tiruvadanai 74.22 10.9
Kunnam 84.83 9.66
Thirumayam 80.1 5.56
Similarly, the constituencies with a lesser number of voter turnout of women voters when
compared to men voters turn out are as follow:
NAME OF THE WOMEN VOTERS PERCENTAGE

CONSTITUENT TURNOUT (in %) DIFFERENCE
ASSEMBLY BETWEEN WOMEN
AND MEN VOTER
TURNOUT
Kancheepuram 70.65 -6.59
15 | P a g e
Uthiramerur 77.13 -6.32
Hiru-vi-ka-nagar 57.47 -6.11
There is a tremendous increase in the voter turnout of Women from the years 2011, 2016, 202
assembly elections.
5,68,500
3,66,795
1,326
2011 2016 2021
The above graph shows the difference between the women voters and men voters in each
legislative assembly election of 2011, 2016, 2021.
8. THIRD GENDER VOTERS:
Only in 2016, Legislative Assembly Elections in Tamil Nadu; the Election Commission
recognized transgender people as a distinct voting group. it was found that in TNLA-2011,
the constituency with the highest number of third gender voters was a thousand lights of
Chennai district with a total of 40. Also, the district with the highest number of third gender
voters was Chennai with a total of 292
The number of third gender voters in the legislative assembly election of 2016 was
4,720 voters.
The third gender voter turnout in all the constituencies is found to be 738 voters. In
the legislative assembly Elections of 2016, the constituency with the higher number
of third gender voters are as follows:
NAME OF CONSTITUENCY NO OF THIRD GENDER
VOTERS
Maduravoyal 127
16 | P a g e
Ambattur 103
Mudhukulathur 103
And the constituency with the lower number of third gender voters are as follows:
Sholinghur, Ranipet, Arcot, Gudiyattam, Polur, Rasipuram, Perundurai, Gudalur,
Aravakurichi, Vedaranyam, Kilvelur, Kumbakonam, Thiruvaiyaru, Orathanadu,
Thirumayam, Aranthangi, Sivaganga, Manamadurai, Melur, Madurai West, Alangulam. All
these constituencies have no third gender voters.
The district with the highest and lowest number of third gender voters are as follows
HIGHEST LOWEST
Chennai Nilgiris
945 5
In the legislative assembly Elections of 2016, the constituency with the higher number
of voter turnout of third gender voters are as follows:
NAME OF CONSTITUENCY NO OF THIRD GENDER
VOTERS
Dharmapuri 47
Krishnarayapuram 33
Madurai East 31
And the constituency with the lower voter turnout of third gender voters are as follows: 98
constituencies have recorded zero voter turnout of third gender voters. It includes
Shozhinganallur, Chengalpattu, Tiruvannamalai, Ulundurpet, Rasipuram, Coimbatore
(North), Karur, Nagapattinam, and so on.
The district with the highest and lowest number of voter turnout of third gender voters are as
follows:
HIGHEST LOWEST
Chennai Tiruvannamalai and
Ariyalur
76 201850
17 | P a g e
The number of third-gender voters in the legislative assembly election of 2021 was 7,246
voters. The highest number of Third gender votes in the legislative assembly elections was
from the Kavundampalayam constituent assembly. The highest voter turnout of third-gender
voters in the legislative assembly elections of 2021 was from the Thondamuthur constituent
assembly.
9. SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE:

In the Legislative Assembly elections of 2016, the total number of scheduled caste
and scheduled tribe voters was found to be:
Scheduled Caste:
 Total voting population: 10041878

 Total number of male voters: 4971422
 Total number of female voters: 10041878
 Total number third gender of voters: 658
 Total voter turnout: 7809904
 Voter turnout of male voters: 3827977
 Voter turnout of female voters: 3922074
 Voter turnout of third gender voters: 102
Scheduled Tribe:
 Total voting population: 490068

 Total number of male voters: 241668
 Total number of female voters: 248379
 Total number third gender of voters: 21
 Total voter turnout: 412935
 Voter turnout of male voters: 202503
 Voter turnout of female voters: 206525
 Voter turnout of third gender voters: 5
CANDIDATE AND PARTY ANALYSIS
10. POLITICAL PARTIES:
The Election commission of India had issued the list of participating political parties which
were as follow:
18 | P a g e
NATIONAL PARTIES
 BJP Bharatiya Janata Party

 BSP Bahujan Samaj Party
 CPI Communist Party of India
 CPM Communist Party of India (Marxist)
 INC Indian National Congress
STATE PARTIES
 ADMK All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

 DMK Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
 PMK Pattali Makkal Katchi
 DMDK Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam
STATE PARTIES - OTHER STATES
 AIFB All India Forward Bloc

 JD(U) Janata Dal (United)
 JKNPP Jammu & Kashmir National Panthers Party
 JMM(U) Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (Ulgulan)
 RJD Rashtriya Janata Dal
 LJP Lok Jan Shakti Party
 SHS Shivsena
 RSP Revolutionary Socialist Party
REGISTERED(UNRECOGNISED) PARTIES
 ABHM Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

 ADSMK Anaithindia Dravidar Samudaya Munnetra Kazhagam
 AIJMK Akhila India Jananayaka Makkal Katchi (Dr. Issac)
 AIMF All India Minorities Front
 AIPPMR All India Party for the Protection of Civil Rights
 APM Ambedkar People's Movement
 ATMK Anaithinthiya Thamizhaga Munnetra Kazhagam
 CPI(ML)(L) Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
19 | P a g e
 CPIMLL Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)
 KNMK Kongu Nadu Munnetra Kazhagam
 IJK Indiya Jananayaka Katchi
 JJ Jebamani Janata
 INL Indian National League
 IDP Indian Democratic Party
 LCOP Lenin Communist Party
 MGRTK MGR Thonderkal Katchi
 MAMAK Manithaneya Makkal Katchi
 MMA Makkal Manadu Katchi
 PB Puratchi Bharatham
 MSK MAKKAL SAKTHI KATCHI
 PPIs Peoples Party of India(secular)
 VCK Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi
 PT Puthiya Tamilagam
 RPI Republican Party of India
 TMMK Tamilaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam
 SDPI SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF INDIA
 SUCI SOCIALIST UNITY CENTRE OF INDIA (COMMUNIST)
 UCPI United Communist Party of India
 YSP Youth and Students Party
 UMK Ulzaipali Makkal Katchi
11. PARTIES AND THEIR ALLIANCES:
The process of allying with political parties in Tamil Nadu arises out of either disappointment
with the previous alliance, or a long bond of alliance between two parties for many years and
elections, or attraction towards parties that allot more constituencies to the alliance parties
were some of the factors that decide the formation of alliances.
 ALLIANCE FORMED BEFORE THE ELECTIONS:
During the period of the TNLA-2011 election, most of the parties had a coalition only with
two major parties, namely AIADMK and DMK.
20 | P a g e
DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM AND ITS ALLIANCE
 DMK made a coalition with four other registered parties and three unregistered parties.
The registered parties were Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), Indian National Congress
(INC), Viduthalai Siruthai Katchi, and Kongunadu Munnetra Kazhagam. The
unregistered parties were Indian Union Muslim League, Moovendar Munnetra
Kazhagam, Peerumthalaivar Makkal Katchi.
 Out of the 234 seats, DMK alone stood in 150 constituencies and the remaining were
given to the other alliance. Indian National Congress was given 63 seats, Pattali Makkal
Katchi were given 30 seats, Viduthalai Siruthai Katchi were given 10 seats and
Kongunadu Munnetra Kazhagam were given 7 seats. The IUML were given 3 seats and
the remaining two parties were given 1 seat each.
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM
 AIADMK made a coalition with six other registered parties and four unregistered parties.
The registered parties were Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK), Communist
Party of India, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Manithaneya Makkal Katchi, Puthiya
Tamilakam, and All India Forward Bloc. The unregistered parties were All India
Samathuva Makhal Katchi, Republican Party of India, All India Moovendar Munnani
Kazhagam, and Tamil Nadu Kongu Ilaignar Peravai.
 Out of the 234 seats, AIADMK alone contested 160 seats. Desiya Murpokku Dravida
Kazhagam (DMDK) were given 41 seats, Communist Party of India were given 10 seats,
Communist Party of India (Marxist) were given 12 seats, Manithaneya Makkal Katchi
were given 3 seats, Puthiya Tamilakam were given 2 seats and All India Forward Bloc
were given 1 seat. The unregistered parties were also given a total of 5 seats out of which
AISMK contested for 2 seats and the remaining parties were given 1 seat each.
The following parties formed an alliance with each other in the legislative assembly elections
of 2016. They are,
 ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM AND ITS ALLIANCE
AIADMK made a coalition with six other parties. Sarathkumar, the founder of the All India
Samathuva Makkal Katchi (AISMK), and Karunas, an actor-turned-politician who represents
Mukkulathor Puli Padai, have allied (represents Thevar community). Republican Party Chief
CK Tamilarasan, Tamil Nadu Kongu Ilaignar Peravai leader U Thaniarasu, Muslim leader
21 | P a g e
Thameeum Ansari's Manithaneya Jananayaga Katchi, and Tamil Manila Muslim League
Leader Sheik Dawood are among the other key allies.
 DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM AND ITS ALLIANCE
DMK made a coalition with seven other parties. Out of the 234 seats, DMK alone stood for
180 seats and the remaining were given to the other alliance Congress was allocated 41 seats,
the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) was allocated 5 seats, the Puthiya Tamizhagam
(PT) was allocated 4 seats, and the Manithaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK) was allocated 5
seats. One contender from the Perunthalivar Makkal Katchi of NR Dhanapalan; one
candidate from former IAS officer V Sivakami's Samuga Samathuva Padai of Pon. Kumar;
and one candidate from the Tamil Nadu Peasants and Workers Party of Pon. Kumar.
 MAKKAH NALA KOOTANI (People's Welfare Alliance)

Alliance integer is the most obvious pattern. When the State's minor parties join forces with a
single Dravidian party, the latter always wins. This year, a fledgling third option has
developed, breaking the trend of minor parties (mainly with single-digit vote percentages)
associating with either the DMK or the AIADMK. The People's Welfare Alliance (PWA) is a
new coalition that includes the following parties:
The Desiya Murpokku Dravidar Kazhagam (DMDK), led by Vijayakant, a former prominent
Tamil cinema actor-turned-politician, is a political party in Tamil Nadu. The Marumalarchi
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK), led by Vaiko, The Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi
(VCK), led by Thol. Tirumavalavan, The Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M), and
the Communist Party of India (CPI), which make up the alliance's national parties, and The
Tamil Maanila Congress (TMC), a fragment from the Indian National (INC).
 NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE
This alliance which was headed by Bharatiya Janata Party, Tamilnadu unit President,
Tamilisai Soundararajan. which had joined hands with the Indiya Jananayaga Katchi will run
for 45 seats, the Akila Indiya Makkal Kalvi Munnetra Kazhagam for 24 seats, and the
Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam for one seat.
 NON-ALIGNED PARTIES
The following parties did not ally with any other parties and stood in elections as a solo
player: Pattali Makkal Katchi, Naam Tamilar Katchi, Tamilnadu Youth Party (TNYP),
22 | P a g e
Welfare Party of India, Social Democratic Party of
India, Anaithu Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam,
Tamizhaga Vazhvurimai Katchi, All India Majlis-e-
Ittehadul Muslimeen, Kongunadu Makkal Desia
Katchi.
The following parties formed an alliance with each

other in the legislative assembly elections of 2021.
They are,
1. NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE: This alliance which was headed by the

then ruling party- All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) which
had joined hands with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) along with the parties like
Puthiya Tamizhagam, Tamil Maania Congress (TMC), and Puthiya Needhi Katchi,
Perunthalaivar Makkal Katchi, Moovendar Munnetra Kazhagam, All India
Moovendar Munnani Kazhagam, Pasumpon Desiya Kazhagam, Tamizhaga Makkal
Munnetra Kazhagam.
2. SECULAR PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE: This alliance was headed by the Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) which has joined hands with the Indian National
Congress (INC), which was joined in by the Communist Party of India (CPI),
Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI (M)), Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi
(VCK), Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK), Manithaneya Makkal
Katchi (MMK), Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), Tamizhaga Vazhvurimai
Katchi (TVK), Aathi Tamizhar Peravai (ATP), Makkal Viduthalai Katchi, All India
Forward Bloc.
3. AMMK+ - ALLIANCE: This alliance headed by AMMK chief TTV Dinakaran

comprises of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musllimeen (AIMIM), Desiya Murpokku
Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK), Gokula Makkal Katchi, Marudhu Senai Sangam,
Makkal Arasu katchi, Viduthalai Tamil Puligal Katchi.
4. MNM+ - ALLIANCE: Makkal Needhi Maiam (MNM) leaded by actor turned
politician Kamal Hassan was in an alliance with All India Samathuva Makkal Katchi
23 | P a g e
(AISMK), Indhiya Jananayaga Katchi (IJK), Tamizhaga Makkal Jananayaka Katchii,
Janata Dal (Secular).
5. NON-ALIGNED PARTIES: The following parties formed no alliance with any
other parties and stood in elections as solo players: Naam Tamizhar Katchi (NTK),
Manithaneya Jananayaka Katchi, Bahujan Samaj Party, Tamil Maanila Muslim
League, Tamil Nadu Peasants, and Workers party were the parties that contest by
themselves.
 ALLIANCE FORMED AFTER THE ELECTIONS:
In the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections of 2021,
Since, the Secular Progressive Alliance won a total of 159 seats on which the DMK alone
won 133 seats with an absolute majority and its counterparts like INC bagging 18 seats, VCK
winning 4 seats, and the red parties of CPI and CPI(M) securing 2 seats each.
On the other hand, the National Democratic Alliance winning 75 seats with the chief
AIADMK winning 66 seats, PMK securing 5 seats which had no seats in the previous
assembly election of 2016, and BJP winning a total of 4 seats.
The above pie graph indicates the major shaded color as the SPA alliance and the lesser
shaded region as the NDA where the statistics are as follow:
Thus, having an absolute majority of seats in the assembly, there were no alliances formed
aftermath of elections. This is because the DMK had a majority in the assembly and did not
need the support of any party or allying to form the government.
ALLIANCE: AN ANALYSIS:
The vote share percentage of the alliances and the parties in the legislative assembly elections
of Tamil Nadu are as follow:
In the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections of 2011,
 Out of 234 constituencies, DMK+ Alliance only managed to win 31 seats.

 Out of the 31 seats won, 23 seats were won by DMK alone.
 The remaining 8 seats were won by PMK and INC, with INC winning 5 seats and PMK
winning the remaining.
On the other hand,
24 | P a g e
 Out of 234 constituencies, AIADMK+ Alliance won 203 seats.
 Out of the 203 seats won, 150 seats were won by AIADMK alone.
 The remaining 53 seats were won by the alliance with DMDK winning 29 seats, CPI(M)
winning 10 seats, CPI winning 9 seats, MNMK and PT winning 2 seats each, and AIFB
winning 1 seat.
In 2016 TNAL, DMK alliance votes share:
 The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) contested in 180 constituencies and won 88
Legislative assembly seats and secured a total of 31.64% of vote share which is
13669116 votes in number.
 The Puthiya Tamizhagam (PT) contested in 4 constituencies and won 18 legislative
assembly seats and secured a total of 4.28% of vote share which is 19,76,527 votes in
number.
 The contested in Manithaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK) 5 constituencies and won 2
Legislative assembly seats and secured a total of 1.09%which is 5,04,537 votes in
number.
 The Perunthalivar Makkal Katchi contested in 1 constituency and won 0 Legislative
assembly seats and secured a 0.51% total of which is 219830 votes in number.
 The contested Samuga Samathuva Padai in 1 constituency and won 2 Legislative
assembly seats and secured a total of 0.03%which is 86 votes in number.
 The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) contested in 5 constituencies and won no
Legislative assembly seats but secured a total of 0.73%which is 313808 votes in a
number
The AIADMK Alliance votes share:
 The All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) contested in 234

constituencies and won 135 Legislative assembly seats and secured a total of 40.77%
which is 17616266 votes in number.
The National Democratic Alliance votes share:
 The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) contested in 188 constituencies and won none of the
Legislative assembly seats and secured a total of 2.84%which is 1228704 votes in
number.
25 | P a g e
The PWA+ alliance votes share:
 The Desiya Murpoku Dravidar Kazhagam (DMDK) contested in 104 constituencies

and won no Legislative assembly seats and secured a total of 2.39% which is
1034384 votes in number.
 The Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) contested in 29
constituencies and won no Legislative assembly seats and secured a total of 0.86%
 The Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) contested in 25 constituencies and won no
Legislative assembly seats and secured a total of 0.77% which is 331849 votes in
number.
 The All-India Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M) contested in 25
constituencies and won no Legislative assembly seats and secured a total of 0.71%
 The Communist Party of India (CPI) contested in 25 constituencies and won no
number.
 The Tamil Maanila Congress (TMC), contested in 26 constituencies and won no
number.
In the TNLA 2021 elections,
The Secular Progressive alliance secured a total of 45.39 %age of total votes cast which is
2,09,83,103 votes in number.
 The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) contested in 188 constituencies and won
133 Legislative assembly seats and secured a total of 37.70% of vote share which is
 The Indian National Congress (INC) contested in 25 constituencies and won 18
legislative assembly seats and secured a total of 4.28% of vote share which is
19,76,527 votes in number.
 The Communist Party of India (CPI) contested in 6 constituencies and won 2
number.
26 | P a g e
 The Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) contested in 6 constituencies and won 4
number.
 The Communist Party of India (Marxist) contested in 6 constituencies and won 2
number.
 The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) contested in 3 constituencies and won no
Legislative assembly seats but secured a total of 0.48%which is 2,22,263 votes in a
number
The National Democratic Alliance secured a total of 39.72%age of total votes cast which is
 The All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) contested in 191

constituencies and won 66 Legislative assembly seats and secured a total of
33.29%which is 1,53,92,542 votes in number.
 The Paatali Makkal Katchi (PMK) contested in 23 constituencies and won 5
number.
 The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) contested in 20 constituencies and won 4
number.
The Naam Tamizhar Katchi (NTK) contested in 234 constituencies and won none of the
Legislative assembly seats and secured a total of 6.72%which is 31,08,906 votes in number.
The AMMK+ Alliance secured a total of 2.84%age of total votes cast which accounts for a
total of 13,14,032 votes in number.
 The Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) contested in 171

constituencies and won none of the Legislative assembly seats and secured a
total of 2.36%which is 10, 88,789 votes in number.
 The Desiya Murpoku Dravidar Kazhagam (DMDK) contested in 60
constituencies and won no Legislative assembly seats and secured a total of
0.48% which is 2,22,838 votes in number.
27 | P a g e
 The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Musllimeen (AIMIM) contested in 3
0.01% which is 2,405 votes in number.
The MNM+ alliance secured a total of 2.73% of the total votes cast which is equal to
12,63,466 votes in number.
 The Makkal Needhi Maiam (MNM) contested in 183 constituencies and won
no Legislative assembly seats and secured a total of 2.62% which is 12,10,886
votes in number.
 The Indhiya Jananayaga Katchi (IJK) contested in 38 constituencies and won
no Legislative assembly seats and secured a total of 0.08% which is 36,867
votes in number.
 The All India Samathuva Makkal Katchi (AISMK) contested in 4
0.02% which is 7,650 votes in number.
12. CANDIDATES: ANALYSIS
In the Legislative Assembly Elections of 2011,
 The total number of candidates contesting in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
Elections 2011 was 2748 in number.
 There was a total of 2605 male candidates and 143 female candidates contested in the
elections.
 The total number of third gender candidates is 0
 The highest number of candidates contesting in a constituency was from Dr.
Radhakrishnan Nagar assembly where the total number of candidates was 31 in
number followed by the Kolathur assembly where there were 27 candidates.
 The lowest number of candidates contesting in a constituency was from the
Nagapattinam assembly where the total number of candidates was 4
 The Highest number of Male Candidates was from the Dr. Radhakrishnan Nagar
Assembly where there were 29 male candidates contested in the election.
 The Lowest number of Male Candidates was from the Nagapattinam Assembly where
the total number of contesting male candidates were 4
28 | P a g e
 Similarly, The Highest number of Female Candidates were from the Gangavalli and
Sholavandhan assembly where the total number of contested candidates was 4 in
number.
The total number of candidates contesting in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections
2016 was 3728 in number.
elections.
 The highest number of candidates contesting in a constituency was from Dr.
Radhakrishnan Nagar assembly where the total number of candidates was 45 in
number followed by the Aravakurichi assembly where there were 36 candidates.
 The lowest number of candidates contesting in a constituency was from Gudalur and
Mayiladuthurai and Arcot assemblies where the total number of candidates was 8
each in number followed by Udumalaipettai, Peravurani, Kilvelur, Thiruvaiyaru,
Valparai, Vanur assemblies where there were 9 candidates.
 The Highest number of Male Candidates was from Dr. Radhakrishnan Nagar and
Aravakurichi Assemblies where there were 36 male candidates contested in the
election.
 The Lowest number of Male Candidates was from the Kilvaithinankuppam Assembly
where the total number of contesting male candidates was 6 in number respectively.
 Similarly, The Highest number of Female Candidates were from the
Kilvaithinankuppam and Gangavalli assembly where the total number of contested
candidates was 6 in number.
 The Lowest number of women candidates are the assembly constituencies with no
women candidates which were 61 in number.
 The data regarding the third gender candidates shows that, only in the constituencies
of Madurai south and Dr. Radhakrishnan Nagar, one candidate each contested in the
elections.
The total number of candidates filed for nomination in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
Elections 2016 is given below:
CONSTITUENCY
29 | P a g e
NOMINATIONS FILED General SC ST Total
1 Male 5058 812 34 5904
2 Female 528 181 10 719
3 Third gender 4 0 0 4
4 Total 5590 993 44 6627
The total number of candidates whose nominations were rejected in the Tamil Nadu
Legislative Assembly Elections 2016 is given below:
CONSTITUENCY
NOMINATIONS REJECTED General SC ST Total
1 Male 1922 286 15 2223
2 Female 269 77 6 352
4 Total 2193 363 21 2577
2016 is given below:
CONSTITUENCY
CANDIDATES CONTESTING General SC ST Total
1 Male
2899 488 19 3406
2 Female 225 91 4 320
4 Total 3126 579 23 3728
PERFORMANCE OF CONTESTING CANDIDATES
THIRD
MALE FEMALE TOTAL
GENDER
i. NO. OF CONTESTANTS 3406 320 2 3728
ii. ELECTED 204 21 0 225
30 | P a g e
iii. FORFEITED DEPOSITS 2963 267 2 3232
2021 was 3998 in number.
elections.
 The highest number of candidates contesting in a constituency was from the Karur
assembly where the total number of candidates was 77 in number followed by the
Aravakurichi assembly where there were 40 candidates.
 The lowest number of candidates contesting in a constituency was from the Valparai
and BavaniSagar assembly where the total number of candidates was 6 each in
number followed by the Vanur assembly where there were 7 candidates.
 The Highest number of Male Candidates was from the Kolathur Assembly where
there were 29 male candidates contested in the election.
 The Lowest number of Male Candidates was from the Bavani Sagar Assembly
followed by Pattukkottai where the total number of contesting male candidates was 5
and 7 in number respectively.
 Similarly, The Highest number of Female Candidates were from the Kolathur,
Tirupattur, and Gudiyattam assembly where the total number of contested candidates
was 7 in number.
 The Lowest number of women candidates are the assembly constituencies with no
women candidates which were 44 in number.
 The data regarding the third gender candidates shows that, only in the constituencies
of Madurai Central and Mylapore, one candidate each contested in the elections.
13. CRIMINAL RECORDS OF THE WINNING CANDIDATES:
Out of the 234 MLA who had won the elections in 2011, 70 candidates had a criminal case
against them which accounted for a 30% of the total strength of the Assembly.
Out of this 70 MLA with criminal cases pending against them, 37 had serious criminal cases
pending. The criminal charges against the winning candidates had cases related to IPC
31 | P a g e
section-302 (Murder) and 13 candidates have been declared related to the cases of IPC
section-307 (Attempt to Murder). candidates had cases under kidnapping and extortion.
The Winning Candidate with the highest number of criminal cases recorded against him/her
was Thaniyarasu. U of AIADMK who won the elections from Paramathi-Vellur and has the
highest criminal record of 36 charges. He had a total of 14 serious IPC counts against him
On analyzing the party-wise winning candidates and their criminal records,
 In All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Thaniyarasu. U from Paramathi-

Vellur had the highest criminal records of 36 cases against him.
 In Paatali Makkal Katchi PMK, J. Gurunathan from Jayankondam assembly had
criminal charges of 9 cases against him with 6 serious IPC counts
 In CPI(M), K. Balakrishna who won the election in the Chidambaram constituency
had 2 criminal cases pending against him with 3 serious IPC counts on him.
 Other popular parties like DMK, DMDK, and CPI only had a lesser number of cases
against them. They had 3,1,1 cases respectively.
Out of the 234 MLA who had won the elections in 2016, 68 candidates had a criminal case
against them which accounted for a 33% of the total strength of the Assembly.
 74 (32%) of the 234 seats are code red constituencies, meaning three or more
candidates have disclosed criminal charges against them. DMK candidates have filed
criminal charges against themselves in 76 percent of cases.
 Nearly 207 candidates have filed significant criminal charges against them. Among
the major parties, 136 (76%) out of 178 DMK candidates, 46 (24%) out of 191
AIADMK candidates, 18 (30%) out of 60 DMDK candidates, 15 (75%) out of 20 BJP
candidates, and 15 (71%) out of 21 Congress candidates have disclosed criminal cases
against themselves in their affidavits.
 466 (13 percent) of the 3,559 candidates analyzed had filed criminal charges against
themselves. Eight candidates have disclosed instances involving violence against
women, one of whom had has declared crimes involving sexual assault and rape (IPC
Section-376).
 In their affidavits, ten (44%) of the 23 candidates examined from Pattali Makkal
Katchi, three (60%) of the five candidates examined from CPI(M), two (50%) of the
32 | P a g e
four candidates examined from CPI, and one (20%) of the five candidates examined
had proclaimed criminal charges against themselves.
 In their affidavits, 50 DMK candidates, 18 AIADMK candidates, eight DMDK
candidates, eight BJP candidates, six Congress candidates, and five Pattali Makkal
Katchi candidates have disclosed severe criminal cases against themselves. Seven
candidates have filed murder (IPC Section-302) charges on themselves. Furthermore,
39 candidates have filed charges of attempted murder (IPC Section 307) on
themselves.
Out of the 234 MLA who had won the elections in 2021, 57 candidates have a serious
criminal offense against them which accounted for a 25% of the total strength of the
Assembly.
The Winning Candidate with the highest number of criminal cases recorded against him/her
is C. Kathiravan of DMK who won the elections from Manachanallur and has the highest
criminal record of 99 charges.
On analyzing the party-wise winning candidates and their criminal records,
 In Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam DMK, Kathiravan C from Manachanallur has the

highest criminal records of 99 cases against him.
 In Indian National Congress INC, Prince from Colachel assembly has the highest
criminal records of 73 cases against him.
 In Tamizhaga Vazhvurimai Katchi TVK, Velmurugan from the Panruti assembly has
the highest criminal record of 17 cases against him.
 In All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam AIADMK, Manoj Pandian from
Alangulam assembly has the highest criminal records of 03 cases against him.
 In Murpoku Dravidar Munnetra Kazhagam MDMK, Chinappa from Ariyalur
Constituency has the highest criminal record of 4 cases against him.
 In Bharatiya Janata Party BJP, Nainar Nagendran from Tirunelveli Constituency has
one criminal case against him.
 In Kongu Makkal Desiya Katchi KMDK, E.R. Eswaran from Tiruchengodu assembly
has 5 charges of a criminal offense against him.
 In Communist Party of India CPI, Ramachandran from Thalli assembly has a criminal
record of 25 cases against him.
33 | P a g e
 In Paatali Makkal Katchi PMK, G K Mani from Pennagaram assembly has criminal
charges of 8 cases against him.
 In Viduthalai Chiruthaigal katchi VCK, S S Balaji from Thiruporur assembly has
criminal cases of 2 offenses against him.
14. COMPARING THE CRIMINAL CASES OF WINNING CANDIDATES IN

2016 WITH 2021 ELECTIONS:
PERCENTAGE OF Candidates with declared criminal cases in
2016: 34%
2021: 60%
PERCENTAGE of Candidates with declared serious criminal cases in
2016: 19%
2021: 25%
15. FINANCIAL ASSETS AND COMPARISON:
 In the Legislative Assembly Elections of 2011, 120 of the totals 234 MLAs were
Billionaires (in Crore Value) which amounts to 51% of the total MLA’s.
 Out of this, DMK had the highest percentage of crorepati MLA’s (83%) with 19 out of 23
having assets in crores.
 54% of the AIADMK MLAs were crorepati which amounts to 81 MLA’s out of the 150
MLA’s won.
 A Narayanan of AIADMK from the Nanguneri constituency had the highest assets among
the MLAs of Tamil Nadu 2011 Assembly Election. The record showed that he had assets
worth 103 crores in total. He was followed by K.C. Palaniswamy of Aravakuruchi who
declared to have an asset worth 67 crores.
NAME OF PARTY TOTAL MLA AVERAGE ASSETS

ANALYSED
DMK 23 9,21,73,829
34 | P a g e
AIADMK 150 3,78,25,385
DMDK 29 3,40,90,235
CPI(M) 10 25,60,519
CPI 9 83,81,035
INC 5 4,41,30,594
PMK 3 4,02,54,872
 According to data, 170 crorepatis hold assets worth Rs 1 crore or more out of the 234
new MLAs. 91 AIADMK MLAs and 73 DMK MLAs have disclosed assets worth
more than Rs 1 crore among them. With assets of Rs 1 crore or more, the Congress
has five MLAs while the IUML has one contender.
 The richest candidate on the list is Nanguneri MLA H. Vasanthkumar of the Congress
party, who reported assets of Rs 337 crore. M.K. Mohan, the DMK's Anna Nagar
contender, ranks second on the list, with assets worth more than Rs 170 crore.
 Jayalalithaa's assets grew by Rs 62 crore between 2011 and 2016, from Rs 51 crore to
Rs 113 crore. M Karunanidhi's assets climbed by more than Rs 18 crore (from Rs 44
crore in 2011 to Rs 62 crore in 2016), while R Sarathkumar's assets increased by more
than Rs 36 crore (from Rs 27 crore in 2011 to Rs 64 crore in 2016), according to the
report.
 With assets worth Rs. 111 crores, DMK ex-minister K.C. Palanisami is ranked fourth
on the list. SMK actor R Sarath Kumar has claimed assets of Rs. 64 crores, which is 2
crores higher than DMK chief M Karunanidhi.
 Among major parties, 37 Congress candidates have average assets of Rs 16.88 crore,
176 BJP candidates have average assets of Rs 2.08 crore, 217 AIADMK candidates
have average assets of Rs 4.83 crore, 170 DMK candidates have average assets of Rs
8.19 crore, 211 PMK candidates have average assets of Rs 1.56 crore, 98 DMDK
candidates have average assets of Rs 2.80 crore, 23 MDK candidates have average
assets of Rs 2.80 crore,
 In their identity affidavits, two BJP candidates, V Karuppan of Chengam seat in
Tiruvannamalai district and S Dhandapani of Tirukkoyilur constituency in
Villupuram, reported nil assets.
35 | P a g e
In the Legislative Assembly Elections of 2021, 192 of the totals 234 MLAs are Billionaires
(in Crore Value) which was much greater than that of 2016, where the number of MLAs with
crore value of assets were 192 in number.
NAME OF THE NO OF WINNING PARTY WISE

POLITICAL PARTY CANDIDATES WITH PERCENTAGE OF CRORE
ASSETS WORTH OVER A PATIS
CRORE (rupees)
DMK 111 89%
AIADMK 58 88%
INC 14 88%
BJP 3 75%
PMK 5 60%
VCK 4 50%
CPI 1 50%
16. EDUCATIONAL DETAILS OF THE CANDIDATES:
In the Legislative Assembly Elections of 2011, it was found that out of the 234 MLA’s, 34
MLAs had only passed the 8th standard which amounts to 15% of the total MLA’s.
 113 MLAs were found to be graduates or with higher education qualifications. It

amounts to 48% of the total MLA’s
 It was found that 2 MLAs were Ph.D. Holders
 The MLAs with the highest education qualifications were Jawahirullah of
Manidhanaya Makkal Katchi and Tamizharasu of AIADMK with both being Ph.D.
Holders
 The MLAs with the lowest education qualifications were A. A Karupuswamy who
had just passed 3rd standard.
89 (44%) MLAs have claimed that their educational credentials are between 5th and 12th
grade, whereas 110 (54%) MLAs have indicated that they hold a graduate degree or above.
Three MLAs have diplomas, while one is only literate. One MLA has not stated his
educational background.
36 | P a g e
 63% of the winning candidates have an undergraduate degree or more which is 142
MLAs in number.
 33% of winning candidates have the educational qualification to be between 5th pass
and 12th pass which is 77 in number and 5 winning candidates have a diploma level of
qualification.
17. AN ANALYSIS OF RE-ELECTED MLAs:
The number of re-elected MLAs to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly in 2021 is 77 in
number. The Total no of re-elected MLAs from DMK was 48 in number, while from ADMK
were 25 in number, and from INC, they were 4 in number.
The average assets of re-elected MLAs in the 2016 assembly elections is 9.58 crores which
had elevated to Rs. 13.80 crores in the 2021 assembly elections.
CONCLUSION;
This research paper is an analysis of one of the most important pillars of democracy-
elections with a deep insight into various aspects of Voter analysis, Candidate analysis, and
Alliance of parties and their analysis which further took the project into inferring and
answering questions on data related to the voting pattern, gender equality and its scope in
elections, properties, financial assets of parties and candidates, criminal records of these
elected representatives, etc.… in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections of 2011,
2016, 2021 respectively.
37 | P a g e
REFERENCES:
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Practice and Procedure-
http://www.assembly.tn.gov.in
Report on General Elections to Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly 2011- Office of the Chief
Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu
Report on General Elections to Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly 2016- Office of the Chief
Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu
Election Commission of India- website http://www.eci.gov.in, http://eci-

citizenservices.eci.nic.in
Election Commission of India-Tamil Nadu Website http://election.tn.gov.in,

https://www.results.eeci.gov.in, https://affidavit.eci,gov.in
Changing Face of Electoral India: Delimitation 2008, Tamil Nadu, State Election
Commission, May 2007
38 | P a g e

Sociology Project - Election Analysis of Tamil Nadu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Sociology Project - Election Analysis of Tamil Nadu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociology Project - Election Analysis of Tamil Nadu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY ON TAMILNADU LEGISLATIVE

ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS-2016, 2011, 2021

Name of the Guide

TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

This is to certify that the project work entitled “A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY

I, B. Hareesh Krishnan., do hereby declare that the project entitled “A

Counter Signed Signature of the Candidate

Secondly, I convey my deepest regards to the Vice-Chancellor Prof. Dr. V.S.

“The ballot is stronger than the bullet”

A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY ON TAMILNADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY ON TAMILNADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTION IN TWO CONSTITUENCIES:

A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY ON TAMILNADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

This project A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY ON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS

2. THE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS:

General electors: A total of 36,818,311 general voters voted on TNLA-2011

Service Voters: A total of 67,915 service voters voted in TNLA-2011

The total no of voters in the 2016 assembly elections was 5,82,01,687

General electors: 5,82,01,687 which had a difference of (increased by 22383376) when

Service Voters: A total of 57,223 service voters voted

Overseas Voters: 3,773

The total no of voters in the 2021 assembly elections was 6,28,23,749

General electors: 6,27,47,653 which had a difference of (increased by 4535966) when

Service Voters: 72,853

In 2016, The Constituent assembly of Sholinganallur in Chengalpattu district has the

5. NUMBER OF NOTA (none of the above)

 NOTA in Tamil Nadu varied from 1,025 in Kaatumannarkoil, where Viduthalai

In the 2021 Assembly Elections, the following Constituencies of

NAME OF THE VOTES ON NOTA VOTERS SECURED BY

Anna Nagar 1,545 AMMK candidate-1,169

6. THE NUMBER OF FIRST TIME VOTERS:

7. THE NUMBER OF WOMEN VOTERS:

NAME OF CONSTITUENCY NO OF WOMEN VOTERS

NAME OF CONSTITUENCY NO OF WOMEN VOTERS

NAME OF THE WOMEN VOTERS PERCENTAGE

NAME OF THE WOMEN VOTERS PERCENTAGE

2011 2016 2021

8. THIRD GENDER VOTERS:

9. SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE:

 Total voting population: 10041878

 Total voting population: 490068

CANDIDATE AND PARTY ANALYSIS

10. POLITICAL PARTIES:

 BJP Bharatiya Janata Party

 ADMK All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

STATE PARTIES - OTHER STATES

 AIFB All India Forward Bloc

 ABHM Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha

11. PARTIES AND THEIR ALLIANCES:

 ALLIANCE FORMED BEFORE THE ELECTIONS:

ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM

 ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM AND ITS ALLIANCE

 DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM AND ITS ALLIANCE

 MAKKAH NALA KOOTANI (People's Welfare Alliance)

 NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE

The following parties formed an alliance with each

1. NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE: This alliance which was headed by the