The Madras High Court stressed that election petitions must be decided within a reasonable time, warning that prolonged delays undermine electoral accountability and democratic principles. Criticising the six-year pendency of the Radhapuram election appeal, the Court described the situation as a “grave mockery of justice.”
Highlighting the importance of electoral accountability, the Madras High Court has observed that election petitions must be decided within a reasonable time and that prolonged delays in adjudicating election disputes can undermine democratic principles. The Court cautioned that failure to adhere to statutory timelines for deciding election petitions could weaken electoral democracy and, in extreme circumstances, pave the way for autocratic tendencies.
Justice G. Jayachandran expressed concern over the prolonged 6 years pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court stemming from the 2016 Radhapuram Assembly election dispute, remarking that the extraordinary delay has turned the matter into a grave mockery of justice. Emphasising the mandate under Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Court noted that election petitions require expeditious disposal because they directly concern the legitimacy of elected representatives and the sanctity of the voters’ mandate.
He made the observations while deciding a long-pending election dispute arising from the 2016 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections in the Radhapuram constituency. The Court ultimately declared that DMK leader M. Appavu, and not AIADMK candidate I.S. Inbadurai, was the duly elected representative from the constituency for the 2016–2021 Assembly term.
Background of the 2016 Radhapuram Election Dispute
The dispute originated from the 2016 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, where AIADMK candidate I.S. Inbadurai was declared elected from the Radhapuram Assembly constituency in Tirunelveli district by a slender margin of just 49 votes over DMK candidate M. Appavu.
Challenging the election result, Appavu approached the Madras High Court by filing an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He alleged that a large number of valid postal ballots cast in his favour had been wrongly rejected during the counting process. He also questioned the counting of votes recorded in Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) during the 19th, 20th, and 21st rounds of counting.
According to Appavu, these irregularities materially affected the outcome of the election and led to the wrongful declaration of Inbadurai as the winning candidate.
After examining the allegations, the Madras High Court, in October 2019, directed a comprehensive re-verification of all postal ballots and a recount of votes recorded in the EVMs during the disputed rounds. One of the central issues before the Court concerned 203 postal ballots that had been rejected by election authorities. These ballots were discarded because the declarations accompanying them had been attested by middle school headmasters.
The Court examined whether such headmasters qualified as gazetted officers for the purpose of attesting postal ballot declarations under election rules. After considering the issue, the High Court concluded that middle school headmasters were indeed entitled to be treated as gazetted officers for this purpose. Consequently, the rejection of the 203 postal ballots was held to be improper.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s order directing recounting and re-verification, Inbadurai approached the Supreme Court in appeal. On October 4, 2019, the Supreme Court permitted the counting and verification exercise to continue but stayed the formal declaration of the results arising from the recount.
What followed was a prolonged period of litigation. The appeal remained pending before the Supreme Court for nearly six years. During this period, the original Assembly term from 2016 to 2021 expired, and two subsequent elections were conducted.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Stays Election Petition Proceedings in Karnataka Caste Claim Case
The Madras High Court noted that the Supreme Court eventually disposed of the appeal only on May 21, 2026. By then, the term of the disputed Assembly had long ended, rendering the controversy largely academic from a practical perspective.
High Court Criticises Delay in Election Litigation
Justice Jayachandran expressed serious concern regarding the delay in resolving election disputes and its implications for democratic governance. The Court stressed that Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 mandates the expeditious disposal of election petitions because election disputes concern the very legitimacy of democratic representation.
Highlighting the constitutional significance of timely adjudication, the Court observed:
“Non-adherence to the mandate contained in Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, will undermine democracy and the true spirit of adult franchise. If courts continue to ignore their own observations made in Mohd.Akbar case, I fear that this country may also go in the way of other autocratic countries which gained Independence around 75 years ago, along with us.”
The Court noted that election petitions are not ordinary civil disputes but involve the rights of voters and the integrity of democratic institutions.
While acknowledging the Supreme Court’s authority, Justice Jayachandran respectfully expressed disagreement with the manner in which the appeal had ultimately been disposed of. The Supreme Court had chosen to keep open the legal question regarding whether middle school headmasters qualified as gazetted officers and observed that no useful purpose would be served in adjudicating the issue after the expiry of the Assembly term.
Referring to this, the High Court remarked:
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after keeping the matter pending for about six years, thought fit that the question has to be kept open in view of the lapse of time and the term of office having expired and no useful purpose would be served in adjudicating upon the said question in the Civil Appeal. With great respect, the Hon’ble Apex Court should have answered this question since this Court has already as Court of first instance/trial Court given a finding in respect of the above question.”
The Court emphasized that important legal issues affecting election law should not remain unresolved merely because of the passage of time.
He remarked, “A Grave Mockery of Justice”
In one of the strongest portions of the judgment, Justice Jayachandran lamented the consequences of the prolonged litigation.
The Court observed:
“The term ‘unfortunate’ may not be an adequate expression to describe the present case since in view of this Court, a grave mockery of justice, under the guise of dispensing justice been committed to the people of India, particularly the voters of No.228 Radhapuram Assembly Constituency, Tirunelveli District, who were forced to bear a person as their Assembly representative though he is not duly elected.”
The Court underscored that election disputes affect not only candidates but also the electorate whose democratic choice may remain frustrated for years if courts fail to act promptly.
The recount exercise yielded significant results. According to the High Court, out of the 203 postal ballots that had earlier been rejected, 153 valid votes were found to have been cast in favour of Appavu, while only one vote had been cast for Inbadurai. Forty-four ballots remained invalid.
After accounting for the corrected tally, the Court concluded that Appavu had actually secured victory in the 2016 election by a margin of 103 votes. The Court therefore declared that Appavu was the duly elected Member of the Legislative Assembly from the Radhapuram constituency for the 2016–2021 term.
Rejecting the argument that the expiry of the Assembly term rendered the issue meaningless, the High Court held that constitutional courts have a continuing obligation to determine the true outcome of elections. Justice Jayachandran observed:
“This Court has a Constitutional duty and has taken a solemn oath to protect and preserve the Constitution. Therefore, not inclined to abdicate its responsibility for whatever reason.”
The Court stressed that democratic accountability requires courts to establish who was lawfully elected, even if the term of office has already expired.
Although the Court declared Inbadurai’s election void, it clarified that there was no allegation of wrongdoing or misconduct on his part. Accordingly, the Court held that he would not suffer any disqualification under election laws.
However, since the Court concluded that he had not been lawfully elected, it ruled that he would not be entitled to claim pensionary benefits associated with serving as an MLA during the 2016–2021 term. The Court further directed the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly to amend official records and substitute Appavu’s name as the elected representative of the Radhapuram constituency for the relevant period.
Case Title: Appavu Vs Inbadurai
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE