The Madras High Court barred R Seenivasa Sethupathi from voting or participating in Tamil Nadu Assembly floor tests after his Tiruppattur election victory was challenged by DMK candidate KR Periakaruppan. The interim order was passed by Justices Victoria Gowri and Senthilkumar.
The Madras High Court restrained R Seenivasa Sethupathi, the winning candidate of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), from participating in legislative proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Assembly after his election from Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency was challenged by KR Periakaruppan of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK).
The order was passed by a Bench comprising Justice Victoria Gowri and Justice Senthilkumar.
It Said,
“Democracy is not sustained merely by the mechanical declaration of results. It is sustained by the living faith of the citizen that every vote lawfully cast is received, preserved, counted and accounted for in accordance with law.“
The Court Said,
Constitutional courts cannot remain silent when the issue concerns not merely the validity of an election, but the immediate use of a disputed electoral mandate to determine the fate of a government.
Factual Backgrounds:
Periakaruppan had lost the Tiruppattur Assembly election in Sivagangai district by a margin of just one vote in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. He subsequently approached the High Court alleging serious irregularities in the counting process, particularly regarding a postal ballot allegedly sent to the wrong constituency.
According to the petitioner, a postal ballot meant for No.185 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency in Sivagangai district was mistakenly sent to No.50 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency in Tirupattur district near Vellore. He alleged that instead of forwarding the ballot to the correct constituency, officials rejected it as invalid.
The matter had first come up before the Court a day earlier, when the Bench directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to explain why no response had been given to representations submitted by Periakaruppan regarding the disputed postal ballot.
Appearing before the Court, the ECI argued that it functions only as an administrator and custodian of records and is not empowered to determine who ought to have won an election after results are declared. The Commission submitted that once the Returning Officer declares the results, the officer becomes functus officio and cannot revisit the process.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) informed the Madras High Court that once election results are officially declared, it no longer has the authority to revisit or alter the outcome, and any dispute arising thereafter can only be adjudicated through an election petition.
Senior counsel G Rajagopalan, appearing for the Election Commission, argued that election disputes arising after declaration of results must necessarily be resolved through election petitions as prescribed under election law.
He submitted before the Court,
“The moment results are declared, our hands are tied,”
The ECI also contended that any attempt to ascertain the factual position regarding the disputed ballot would require opening sealed election records and conducting a process akin to a trial.
Periakaruppan, however, maintained that election authorities had failed to address serious discrepancies. Apart from the postal ballot issue, he alleged that there was an 18-vote mismatch between EVM figures recorded in the consolidated round-wise counting abstract and figures uploaded on the ECI website.
He also sought production of videographic footage relating to the mandatory reverification process for rejected postal ballots.
In his interim plea, Periakaruppan specifically requested the Court to restrain Sethupathi from participating in legislative proceedings pending adjudication of the writ petition. The plea did not seek a stay on oath-taking but focused on restricting participation in Assembly proceedings until the dispute is resolved.
Observations and Directions of the Court:
The Court observed that, at this stage, a prima facie case had been made out warranting interim protection.
The Court Said,
In an election decided by one vote, every vote is not merely relevant; it is potentially determinative.
Accordingly, the Bench restrained Sethupathi from voting or participating in any floor test in the Assembly, including confidence motions, no-confidence motions, trust votes or any proceeding where the numerical strength of the House may be tested, until further orders.
It said,
“Participation in a floor test may determine the survival or fall of a government. If the 6th respondent participates in such proceedings and his vote becomes decisive, the consequences may extend far beyond the constituency and impact the constitutional governance of the State.”
At the same time, the Court clarified that its interim order should not be construed as setting aside Sethupathi’s election. It further stated that the order would not automatically entitle Periakaruppan to be declared elected.
It Said,
We are not declaring Sethupathi’s election void. Nor was it seating Periakaruppan in his place. The order is only a limited interim protection pending production of records and counter.
The High Court also issued extensive directions for preservation of election-related materials connected to the Tiruppattur constituency counting process conducted on May 4, 2026.
ALSO READ: Karur Stampede Case: CBI Questions TVK Chief Vijay Ahead of Tamil Nadu Elections
The Court directed authorities to secure and preserve all records relating to counting in No.185 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency. These include consolidated counting abstracts, statutory forms, round-wise counting sheets, EVM vote account records, postal ballot records, rejected postal ballot covers and papers, declarations, envelopes, reverification proceedings and all related documents.
Additionally, the Court ordered that if any postal ballot intended for No.185 Tiruppattur constituency had been received, retained, rejected or handled at No.50 Tiruppattur constituency, it must be separately identified, sealed and preserved without being opened or tampered with.
The Bench further directed preservation of videographic footage relating to counting, scrutiny and rejection of postal ballots, including footage of any reverification process, in original electronic form along with backup copies.
Authorities have also been restrained from destroying, altering, transferring or parting with custody of any such material except in accordance with law and subject to further orders of the Court or the competent election forum.
The Court clarified that its directions should not be interpreted as an order for recounting or reopening ballot papers. It also made clear that the interim order does not amount to validation of any rejected postal ballot or interference with the election result already declared.
The Bench further left open all legal rights and contentions available to the parties, including remedies under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Case Title: KR Periakaruppan v. Chief Election Officer
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES