The Election Commission of India told the Madras High Court that declared election results cannot be altered administratively and disputes must be resolved through election petitions. The submission came in a plea by DMK candidate KR Periakaruppan, who lost Tiruppattur constituency by one vote.
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.
The submission was made during the hearing of a plea filed by KR Periakaruppan, a candidate of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), who lost the Tiruppattur Assembly constituency in Sivaganga district by a margin of just one vote.
A vacation Bench comprising Justice Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar posted the matter for further hearing on Tuesday.
The dispute arose after Periakaruppan alleged that a postal ballot meant for Tiruppattur constituency in Sivaganga district had mistakenly been sent to another constituency with the same name Tiruppattur constituency in Tiruppattur district near Vellore.
The Assembly election results declared on May 4 showed an exceptionally close contest in the Sivaganga Tiruppattur constituency. Periakaruppan secured 83,364 votes, while Srinivasa Sethupathi of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) polled 83,365 votes, defeating the DMK candidate by a single vote.
Claiming that the disputed postal ballot could potentially alter the election outcome, Periakaruppan approached the High Court seeking directions to trace, secure and include the ballot in the final counting process.
He also sought an interim direction restraining Srinivasa Sethupathi from participating in proceedings of the 17th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly until the writ petition is decided.
During the hearing, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the ECI by Archana Patnaik, Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu. In the affidavit, the ECI stated that the issue concerning the postal ballot had never been raised during the counting process and surfaced only after the declaration of results.
ALSO READ: Karur Stampede Case: CBI Questions TVK Chief Vijay Ahead of Tamil Nadu Elections
The affidavit further stated that Periakaruppan had not produced any documentary material to substantiate his allegations apart from a supporting affidavit filed before the Court.
The Commission also clarified that the Returning Officer’s powers extend only until the declaration of election results. Once results are formally announced, the Returning Officer cannot entertain any request relating to recounting or modification of results.
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,”
Rajagopalan further contended that the writ petition itself was not maintainable because election results cannot ordinarily be challenged through writ jurisdiction and must instead be questioned through a properly instituted election petition.
Appearing for Periakaruppan, senior counsel NR Elango argued that the Election Commission, even in its counter-affidavit, had not specifically denied the allegation that the postal ballot was wrongly sent to a different constituency.
The case has drawn considerable attention because of the razor-thin margin of victory and the possibility that a single postal ballot could have impacted the final result. The matter is expected to be taken up again by the High Court on Tuesday.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES