Madras High Court Seeks ECI's Response To DMK Candidate's Plea Who Lost TN Elections By One Vote Allegedly Due To Postal Ballot Mix-Up

In a special Sunday hearing today, the Madras High Court sought the Election Commission's response to DMK leader and former Minister for Co-operatives KR Periakaruppan's plea alleging that one postal ballot of No 158 Tiruppattur constituency, from where he contested in the 2026 assembly elections, mistakenly ended up at No. 50 Tiruppattur constituency, due to both constituencies sharing the same name.

The vacation bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthil Kumar has asked the election authority as to what is the procedure or course available in such a situation.

Significant to note that TVK's Seenivasa Sethupathi won the polls from the said constituency by mere one vote. The swearing-in ceremony was held earlier today but Sethupathi has not taken oath and will face the floor test in the Assembly.

When the case was taken, the Court at the outset inquired if there was any procedure prescribed by the Election Commission to ameliorate such situations.

"What is the procedure adopted. According to you, the ballot paper was wrongly sent from your constituency to the other constituency. What is the procedure to be adopted if the contituency which has received the ballot sheet that belongs to a different constituency?" the court asked.

To this, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the DMK candidate submitted that it is a rare situation and no known procedure covers it.

"This is such a rare circumstance. According to me, on normal practical common sense if the letter is addressed to a wrong house it should be brought back to the correct house. The returning officer should not have rejected it. He should have said it does not belong to my constituency and send it to the correct constituency.... I did not find any procedure regarding this rare circumstance. All procedures cannot contemplate all situations. So I will show you that the bar of Article 329 does not apply here," Singhvi said.

"Suppose that vote comes here. Then the voting is equal. Then under the law and the constitution there has to be a draw of lots. How can a person continue when the votinig has happened in this fashion?" Rohatgi further submitted.

He submitted that only the Constitutional Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, can direct that the ballot be brought back and counted in the constituency where it was meant to be.

He argued that the bar under Article 329 of the Constitution, which creates a constitutional bar on the Court to interfere in electoral matters, would not apply to extraordinary situations. When the court asked what the extraordinary circumstance was in the present case, Rohatgi submitted,

"The extraordinary circumstance is that the difference is only of one vote. One vote has wrongly gone to one constituency. Merely because it is a postal ballot, it is the postman's mistake. I wrote to the ECI - please tell the postman to correct the mistake. Instead of No. 50, it should have come to my constituency. I would not have bothered the court if it was one vote and the difference (in vote margin) was 100 or 1000. But here the difference in 1 vote. And 1 vote coming back here which is a valid vote, it would become equal. The entire election hinges on that," Rohatgi argued.

Rohatgi argued that he was not seeking a recount of votes but was only asking that a correct vote be sent to the correct home. He argued that in an election petition, there was no provision to call the vote to the correct constituency, and such a prayer could be granted only under Article 226 of the Constitution. He added that the matter was urgent since it could turn the election upside down.

When the court enquired if the Election Officer had given any reply, Rohatgi submitted in the negative. Rohatgi submitted that he had come to know of the incident through his election agent, who informed him that though the vote was a valid one, the Returning Officer in No. 50 constituency had rejected it. He also submitted that the Returning Officer had not sent any reply to his objections.

Senior Advocate NR Elango, also appearing for Periakaruppan, added to the submissions and said that the Election Laws, as a whole, do not contemplate such a situation. It was submitted that neither the Representation of the People Act nor the Conduct of Election Rules provided for the handling of a vote cast for another constituency. He submitted that Rule 54A of the Rules provided for the counting of postal votes but did not provide for a situation where the Returning Officer of one constituency received the postal ballot for another constituency. He added that this extraordinary situation has prompted the party to approach the court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi, argued that while it was an extraordinary case, the present petition was a frivolous, vexatious, non-existent case. He argued that the petitioner had falsely submitted that the Election Commission had not considered his objections. He pointed out that there were four communications, the first email by Periakaruppan had not reached, even as admitted by him. This was followed by a letter through the post, which has not reached even as of this date and was lying in Chennai. He further submitted that only two representations made by Periakaruppan had reached the authorities, and both were decided. He added that whether the decision on these representations was right or wrong could be decided only in an election petition.

When the court pointed out that there was an urgency, Singhvi submitted that the main prayer was one in the nature of recounting. With respect to the interim prayer of injunction, Singhvi argued that after losing the election, Periakaruppan, through clever drafting, has sought that the candidate who won the election should also be prevented from voting.

"It is a direct stoppage of his electoral rights, which in turn are his democratic rights, which in turn are fundamental rights, which is done when an election petition succeeds in evidence. In a petition under 226, without even filing an election petition, if he succeeds, it is more than what he would get after trial and after winning the election petition," Singhvi said.

Singhvi argued that the dispute could be decided only through an election petition, and the Petitioner cannot indirectly, by way of a writ petition, prevent Sethupathi from exercising his right to participate in the assembly. He added that the case was an abuse in a pretence and disguise of an urgent interim prayer. He added that the matter cannot be decided in an urgent Sunday hearing, adding that all three prayers require notice and response.

Senior Advocate Raghavachari also appeared for the TVK candidate and submitted that the DMK candidate was aware that his email was not received by the ECI, but had not mentioned any of it in the plea. He submitted that the two applications submitted by Periakaruppan were rejected, and the third one was still in dispatch. He wondered if a mandamus would lie when a representation itself had not been made. He argued that when non-consideration of representation was claimed, the representation should be in the hands of the authorities, which was not the present case.

Advocate Tarun Rao, appearing for the Election Commission of India, submitted that after the elections were over, the Returning Officer would be functus officio. He submitted that the declaration of results were being challenged through a different language, which should be done only by way of an election petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate NR Elango

Counsel for Respondent: Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, Advocate Tushar Rao

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

Case No: WP 19287 of 2026