Constitutional Courts Cannot Be Silent When Single Disputed Vote May Decide Fate Of Government: Madras High Court

While restraining TVK MLA Seenivasa Sethupathi, who won the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections from Tiruppattur constituency by one vote, from participating in any floor test, the Madras High Court observed that the courts can interfere in the election process when a disputed vote could decide the very fate of the government.

The vacation bench of Justice Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar passed the interim orders on a plea filed by DMK candidate from Tiruppattur constituency, Periakaruppan, who had alleged that a postal vote in his favour was wrongly sent to a different constituency with the same name and was ultimately rejected. 

"The principle that “election disputes must await an election petition” cannot be converted into a principle that, constitutional courts must remain silent, even when the issue is not merely the validity of an election, but the immediate use of a disputed electoral mandate, to decide the fate of Government," the court said.

It may be noted that Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam party received the highest number of votes (108) during the election but was unable to form a majority, as it fell short of the two-thirds mark of 118 votes. The party was ultimately allowed to form the government, with parties including the Indian National Congress (5 seats), the Indian Muslim League (2 seats), the CPI (2 seats), the CPIM (2 seats), and the VCK (2 seats) extending their support to the party. The government will, however, be subjected to a floor test that is scheduled to take place on 13th May (Wednesday).

The court observed that the floor test was not like an ordinary legislative meeting but determined the survival and fall of the government. The court remarked that if Sethupathi was allowed to vote in the floor test, the consequences may travel far beyond his constituency and might affect the governance of the State itself.

"The floor test is not an ordinary legislative sitting. Participation in a floor test may determine the survival or fall of a Government. If the sixth respondent participates in such proceedings and his vote becomes decisive, the consequence may travel far beyond the constituency and affect the constitutional governance of the State," the court said.

The court thus opined that the balance of convenience lay in preserving constitutional neutrality. The court added that no harm would be caused to Sethupathi if he was prevented from participating in the floor test, but if he was permitted and his vote became decisive, the purity of the election process may become incapable of meaningful correction.

Lack of Procedural Safeguards

One of the main grounds raised by the Election Commission and the winning candidate was with respect to the maintainability of the plea. It was argued that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not maintainable and the courts could interfere in the electoral process only by way of an election petition. 

The court, however, noted that the present case could not be taken as an ordinary election dispute. The court observed that the present case stood on an exceptional and unprecedented factual footing, one which was not contemplated by the legislature while enacting Section 100 of the Representation of People Act.

"However, the present case stands on an altogether exceptional and unprecedented factual footing, which, in the considered view of this Court, was never within the legislative contemplation while enacting Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.The grievance projected before this Court is not a routine challenge to counting, recounting, acceptance or rejection of votes simpliciter," it observed.

The court added that the present case, where one postal vote was sent to the wrong constituency and was ultimately rejected, was not one of the grounds contemplated under Section 100 of the Act, for which an election petition could be filed.

"Such a situation, where an identifiable vote belonging to one constituency enters the electoral stream of another constituency and is extinguished without any corrective restorative mechanism being invoked by the election authorities, is not one expressly contemplated under the grounds enumerated in Section 100 of the Act," the court said.

Lapse On The Part Of Returning Officer In Discharging Duties

The court also found fault with the conduct of returning officer for the No. 50 Tiruppattur constituency in rejecting the postal vote that was wrongly sent there instead of No.185 Tiruppattur constituency.

The court held that the officer should have taken prompt corrective steps to restore and transmit the ballot to the competent Returning Officer of No.185–Thiruppattur Assembly Constituency, instead of mechanically rejecting the same as one belonging to another constituency. 

The court added that the election officers were not merely passive custodians of forms, but were constitutional functionaries obligated to ensure that each vote cast by a citizen reaches its lawful destination and is accounted for. The court added that any failure to ensure the same is a serious dereliction in preserving the sanctity, transparency and reliability of the electoral process, which forms part of the basic democratic structure underlying the Constitution itself. 

"The rejection of a vote admittedly relatable to a live electoral process, without undertaking restorative administrative measures, defeats the very checks and balances consciously incorporated in the well-conceived constitutional and statutory electoral architecture," court observed.

The court thus observed that the petition was maintainable for the limited purpose of maintaining the electoral integrity and securing ends of constitutional justice in a situation which was not contemplated under the legislature. 

The court was thus inclined to issue interim directions, restraining Sethupathi from voting in the floor test. The court also directed the authorities to preserve the records relating to counting of votes in No.185 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency, including the consolidated counting abstract, statutory forms, round-wise counting sheets, EVM vote account records, postal ballot records, rejected postal ballot covers, rejected postal ballot papers, declarations, envelopes, proceedings relating to reverification of rejected postal ballots, and all connected materials. 

The court added that if any postal vote belonging to No 185 Tiruppattur constituency was received, handled, and rejected in the No. 50 Tiruppattur constituency, it should be identified, sealed, secured and preserved separately, without opening or tampering.

The court also ordered that the video footage of the counting of postal votes and its rejecting should be preserved along with copies.

The court also made it clear that the order should not be taken as one for re-counting, re-accounting, reopening of ballot papers, validation of any rejected postal ballot, or interference with the declaration of result already made.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Counsel, and Mr. N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel, Assisted by Mr. Aswin Prasanna and Mr. S. Agilesh Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. G. Rajagopalan for Mr. Tarun Rao Kallakuru, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Counsel, Mr. V. Raghavachari, Senior Counsel, Assisted by Mr. K.P.Anantha Krishnan, and Mr. Pranjal Agarwal

Case Title: KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 206

Case No: WP 19287 of 2026