Can an election decided by one vote be tested at trial? The Supreme Court has admitted KR Periakaruppan’s appeal against the rejection of his election petition, keeping alive the challenge to a Tamil Nadu Assembly seat decided by a single vote.
New Delhi: The election records from a seat decided by a single vote are to be preserved, the Supreme Court directed on Friday, November 6, 2026, as it admitted for hearing an appeal by DMK candidate KR Periakaruppan against a Madras High Court order rejecting his election petition. The petition challenges the victory of TVK’s R. Seenivasa Sethupathi by one vote in the Tirupattur constituency in the recent Tamil Nadu Assembly elections [K.R. Periyakaruppan v. R. Seenivasa Sethupathi].
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh gave Sethupathi liberty to file his reply and directed that all relevant records relating to the election be preserved.
Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari appeared for Periakaruppan, while Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Sethupathi.
The ruling now under appeal
On September 28, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan of the Madras High Court allowed Sethupathi’s application seeking rejection of the election petition.
Sethupathi’s case was that the petition did not plead the material facts an election petition requires and described a highly implausible scenario. He submitted that the Conduct of Election Rules provide several independent identifiers that make it extremely difficult for a postal ballot to reach the wrong constituency, and that there was no basis to allege that exactly one such ballot had been received elsewhere. He also argued that no objection on counting was raised at the time of counting, and that it was raised only after the results were declared.
The postal-vote allegation
According to Periakaruppan, postal votes meant for the Tiruppattur constituency he contested were wrongly sent to the similarly named No. 50 Tiruppattur constituency, where they were rejected. He says they should have been forwarded to the correct constituency and counted, that the one-vote margin would then not have arisen and he would have secured a majority, and that the election procedure was not followed as required by law.
Sethupathi denies these claims. They are allegations in the election petition and have not been adjudicated on merits.
From a writ petition to an election petition
In May, Periakaruppan went to the Madras High Court with a writ petition seeking a recount of postal votes, a direction to the Returning Officer to furnish video footage of the mandatory reverification process under Clause 19.10.3 of the Handbook for Returning Officers, 2023, and an order restraining Sethupathi from taking part in Assembly proceedings.
A vacation bench of the High Court on May 12 restrained Sethupathi from participating in floor motions, including a confidence motion or floor test, observing that a strong prima facie case had been made out. Sethupathi challenged that order, and the Supreme Court stayed it, describing it as “atrocious”. Periakaruppan then withdrew the writ petition and filed an election petition.
What the admission means
Periakaruppan has now appealed the rejection. With the appeal admitted, the Supreme Court will examine whether the election petition deserved a trial.
An election petition can be thrown out at the threshold if it fails to plead material facts, a rule meant to keep speculative challenges from unsettling a declared result. At the same time, in a contest decided by a single vote, even one wrongly handled ballot could change the outcome, which raises the stakes of how strictly that threshold is applied.
By admitting the appeal and directing that the election records be preserved, the Supreme Court has ensured that the evidence remains available whatever the final outcome. The Court has expressed no view on the merits of either side’s case.
Case Title: K.R. Periyakaruppan v. R. Seenivasa Sethupathi [C.A. Nos. 13957-13958 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: November 6, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari for the appellant; Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for the respondent