BREAKING| 'Atrocious' : Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Restraining TVK MLA Sethupathi From Voting In TN Floor Test

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that the High Court's judgment is so erroneous that some strictures should be passed. Singhvi expresed surprise at the writ petition, filed on a Saturday evening, being urgently heard on Sunday.

The bench asked Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for DMK candidate Periakaruppan, how a writ petition under Article 226 could be filed against the election result. The bench pointed out that the Election Petition is the correct remedy.

"This is atrocious. The High Court says remedy is election petition and still entertains the writ petition," Justice Mehta said.

Rohatgi said that the extraordinary facts of the case warranted the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. He stated that his client contested from constituency no.185 (Thirpathhur) and there was another constituency with the same name, constituency no.50. A postal ballot in favour of Periakaruppan was mistakenly delivered to constituency no.50. Had that postal ballot been counted, the result would be a tie, Rohatgi stated. The senior counsel contended that it was an unprecedented case.

The bench, giving opportunity to Rohatgi to file a counter-affidavit, stayed the High Court's order. Singhvi submitted that the floor test proceedings are underway. Rohatgi said that DMK was walking out of the floor test, and the petitioner's participation may not be consequential.

Singhvi had mentioned the matter yesterday before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, seeking urgent listing in view of the imminent floor test. Taking note of the urgency, the CJI agreed to list the matter on Wednesday.

The DMK candidate filed a writ petition, contending that a postal ballot, which was in his favour, was not considered, as it was wrongly sent to another constituency.

The High Court passed the interim order observing that if Sethupathi was allowed to vote when the dispute is pending, it may affect the government itself. The High Court therefore observed that the balance of convenience was in favour of stopping his vote.