ElectionCase – Supreme Court to Hear TVK MLA’s Plea Over Assembly Voting Ban
ElectionCase –The Supreme Court is set to hear a petition filed by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA R. Seenivasa Sethupathi against an interim order of the Madras High Court that temporarily prevents him from taking part in any floor test proceedings in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The matter gained urgency after the High Court passed restrictions linked to the narrow one-vote result in the Tiruppattur Assembly constituency election.
Supreme Court Agrees to Urgent Hearing
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi mentioned the case before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Tuesday, requesting an urgent listing. The apex court agreed to hear the matter on Wednesday.
Sethupathi’s petition challenges the Madras High Court’s interim direction, which bars him from voting or participating in proceedings where the numerical strength of the Assembly may be tested. These include confidence motions, no-confidence motions, trust votes, and similar floor proceedings until further orders are issued.
High Court Order Triggered by Election Dispute
The interim order was delivered by a vacation Bench comprising Justices L. Victoria Gowri and N. Senthilkumar while hearing a writ petition filed by DMK leader and former Tamil Nadu Minister K.R. Periakaruppan.
Periakaruppan lost the Tiruppattur seat in Sivaganga district by a margin of just one vote in the Assembly election. According to official Election Commission data, Sethupathi secured 83,365 votes, while Periakaruppan received 83,364 votes.
The extremely close result led to legal scrutiny over the counting process and handling of postal ballots.
Allegations Over Postal Ballot Handling
Periakaruppan alleged that there were serious procedural lapses during the counting process. He claimed that a postal ballot intended for Tiruppattur constituency No.185 in Sivaganga district was mistakenly sent to another constituency carrying the same name in Tiruppattur district near Vellore.
According to the petition, the ballot was rejected there instead of being redirected to the correct constituency for counting. The petitioner argued that this error may have influenced the final outcome because of the razor-thin margin between the candidates.
The Madras High Court observed that the case raised unusual constitutional concerns, particularly because the disputed postal ballot related to a concluded election but was allegedly diverted due to administrative confusion linked to identical constituency names.
Court Highlights Importance of Every Vote
In its observations, the High Court stated that the dispute was not an ordinary election matter involving simple recounting or routine rejection of votes. Instead, it pointed to a possible administrative breakdown affecting the integrity of the electoral process.
The Bench noted that in an election decided by a single vote, every ballot carries significant weight and could directly influence the result.
The court also referred to allegations regarding an 18-vote discrepancy in Electronic Voting Machine records between two official sources. Combined with the disputed postal ballot issue, the Bench said the concerns could not be dismissed at the preliminary stage.
Directions Issued to Preserve Election Records
To ensure that evidence remains intact during further proceedings, the High Court directed election authorities to preserve all materials connected to the counting exercise.
These include postal ballot records, rejected postal ballot covers, EVM vote account documents, videographic footage of counting operations, and related election materials.
At the same time, the court clarified that its interim order does not amount to cancelling Sethupathi’s election victory or declaring Periakaruppan as the elected representative.
Election Commission Opposed Petition
During proceedings before the High Court, the Election Commission of India opposed the maintainability of the writ petition. Counsel appearing for the Commission argued that once election results are formally declared, disputes should be resolved only through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Senior counsel G. Rajagopalan, representing the Election Commission, stated that the powers of the Returning Officer end once the result is officially announced. He argued that authorities are legally limited after declaration of results.
However, the Madras High Court maintained that the present dispute involved exceptional circumstances connected to electoral integrity and constitutional fairness, making the case distinct from ordinary election challenges.