10 Years After Election, Madras High Court Declares Defeated Candidate Winner; Raises Concerns Over Delay In Election Petitions

Noting the unfortunate 10-year delay in ordering the case due to the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court, Justice G Jayachandran highlighted that when courts do not adhere to the mandate for expeditious trial as provided under the Representation of the People Act, it undermines democracy and the true spirit of adult franchise.

“Judiciary in this Country, being the custodian of the Constitution, should act in tandem with the other organs of the Constitution, to retain the pride of this Nation as one of the largest democratic Countries in the world, among the Nations which resorted to democratic form of Government on gaining Independence, post World War-II. Non-adherence to the mandate contained in Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, will undermine democracy and the true spirit of adult franchise. If Courts continue to ignore their own observations made in Mohd.Akbar case (cited supra), I fear that this Country may also go in the way of other autocratic Countries which gained Independence around 75 years ago, along with us,” the court observed.

The court added that the present case was a mockery of justice, where people of the constituency were forced to bear a person as their representative though he was not duly elected.

“The term 'unfortunate' may not be an adequate expression to describe the present case since in view of this Court, a grave mockery of justice, under the guise of dispensing justice been committed to the people of India, particularly the voters of No.228 Radhapuram Assembly Constituency, Tirunelveli District, who were forced to bear a person as their Assembly representative though he is not duly elected,” the court said.

The observations were made while allowing the Election Petition filed by Appavu in 2016, challenging the victory of the AIADMK candidate IS Inbadurai. Appavu had contested the polls representing the DMK party. As per the declaration made by the Returning Officer, Inbadurai had won the elections by a margin of 49 votes.

Appavu argued that the valid votes which were cast in his favour were wrongly rejected and therefore a recount was necessary. This was objected by the respondent stating that 203 postal ballots were found to be invalid since they were attested by Headmasters of Middle Schools, who were not gazetted officers, whereas the election rules mandate that postal ballots must be attested by Gazetted Officers.

When the case was taken up in 2019, the court, through an interim order had ordered a recount of all the votes. Following this, the recounting of the postal votes and the EVMs took place on the court campus on October 4, 2019. However, on the same day, the Supreme Court entertained a Special Leave petition against the recount and ordered that the results should not be declared.

This SLP was kept pending since 2019, and was finally disposed of on May 21, 2026 noting lapse of time and term of office having expired. The Supreme Court, however, did not render a finding on whether Headmasters were gazetted officers for the purpose of attesting the postal ballots.

However, on perusing the reports before the Supreme Court, the high court noted that out of the 203 postal votes, Appavu had received 153 valid votes and Inbadurai had received 1 valid vote in his favour. Thus, the court observed that Appavu had won the election by a margin of 103 votes.

With respect to the validity of attestation by Headmasters, the court noted that it had, in 2019 itself had held that headmasters were empowered to attest the identity of the elector. The court noted that though the order was challenged by way of an SLP, the Supreme Court had not reversed the finding.

Thus, the court concluded that Appavu was the winning candidate from the constituency during the 2016-2021 elections. The court however did not disqualify Inbadurai but prevented him from claiming any pensionary benefit of being an MLA for the 2016-2021 term.

The court also directed the Secretary, Legislative Assembly to substitute the name of Appavu as the representative of the Radhapuram Assembly Constituency for the 2016-2021 term in all official records.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.A.E.Ravichandran

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar

Case Title: M Appavu v IS Inbadurai and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 239

Case No: Election Petition No.2 of 2016