Madras High Court Restrains TVK MLA From Floor Test Voting, Passes Interim Order In DMK Candidate's Challenge To 1-Vote Win
The Madras High Court in an interim order on Tuesday ( May 12) restrained TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi–who won from Tiruppattur constituency, from participating in any floor motion in 17th Legislative assembly including the confidence motion or floor test. For context, the trust vote is due to take place soon after TVK came to power electing actor Vijay as the Chief Minister of...
The Madras High Court in an interim order on Tuesday ( May 12) restrained TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi–who won from Tiruppattur constituency, from participating in any floor motion in 17th Legislative assembly including the confidence motion or floor test.
For context, the trust vote is due to take place soon after TVK came to power electing actor Vijay as the Chief Minister of the State. Vijay took oath as the CM on Sunday.
The bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar passed the interim order in a plea filed by former Minister R Periakaruppan alleging that one postal vote of No. 185 Tiruppattur constituency in Sivagangai District, (from where he contested as DMK candidate), which was in his favour, had been wrongly sent to No. 50 Tiruppattur constituency of Tiruppattur District.
The bench however made it clear that the order "should not be treated as one setting aside his winning or one confirming it". It said that a "strong prima facie case" has been made out by Periakaruppan.
"We are fully satisfied that a strong prima facie case has been made out for granting interim directions," the court said.
The court has further directed the Election Commission of India to preserve video footage and postal vote.
Periakaruppan had approached the court seeking directions to the Chief Election Officer, Chief Electoral Officer and Principal Secretary to Government (Elections) Department, District Election Officer cum Collector (Sivagangai District), Returning Officer (No. 185 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency), Returning Officer (No. 50 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency) to secure the postal ballots that were wrongly sent to No. 50 constituency instead of No. 185 constituency and to account them in No 185 constituency.
Periakaruppan had also sought an interim injunction to restrain TVK's Seenivasa Sethupathi from participating in any legislative process in the 17th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly pending disposal of the writ petition. He had also sought direction to the Returning Officer for No 185 constituency to furnish the video footage of the mandatory reverification process in accordance with Clause 19.10.3 of the Handbook for the Returning Officer, 2023.
During a special hearing on Sunday (10th May), senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the former Minister, argued that the bar under Article 329 of the Constitution would not apply to the present case. He had argued that the present case was an extraordinary situation where one postal vote was sent to a different constituency with the same name. He had argued that the prayer sought could not have been granted by way of an Election petition and only the court, exercising inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could order the transfer of the postal vote and recounting.
To this, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the winning TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi, submitted that the present petition was a frivolous, vexatious, non-existent case. He argued that through clever drafting, Periakaruppan was indirectly seeking a recount, which could be done only by way of an election petition.
The court had also asked the Election Commission of India to respond to the plea, explaining what action it had taken on an email representation made by Periakaruppan on May 5th.
Submitting its reply on Monday (11th May), the ECI submitted that Periakaruppan had not produced any materials to substantiate his claim. Senior Advocate G Rajapolana, appearing for the ECI, told the court that once the election results are declared, the ECI had no powers and any question thereafter will have to be decided by way of an election petition.
ECI also questioned the maintainability of the plea and argued that as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution and Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, an election cannot be called into question by the court except by way of an election petition. The ECI further submitted that only those postal votes, which are received by the authorities by the time specified can be counted on the particular date and there was no provision under law which permitted the transfer of postal vote wrongly sent to a constituency instead of another. The ECI also submitted that Periakaruppan's argument was highly improbable since there were sufficient procedural safeguards to prevent such a situation.
To this, Senior Advocate NR Elango, appearing for the former Minister, argued that even in its counter affidavit, the ECI had not refuted the allegation that the postal vote was sent to the wrong constituency.
Report on the judgment - Constitutional Courts Cannot Be Silent When Single Disputed Vote May Decide Fate Of Government: Madras High Court
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 Respondents: 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