The Supreme Court of India stayed the Madras High Court order barring R Seenivasa Sethupathi from participating in Tamil Nadu Assembly floor tests and trust votes, with the Bench calling the High Court’s direction “atrocious” before suspending its operation.
The Supreme Court of India stayed an order of the Madras High Court that had barred R Seenivasa Sethupathi from participating in any floor test or trust vote in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi strongly criticised the High Court’s direction and described the order as “atrocious” before proceeding to stay its operation. Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed surprise that the writ petition had still been entertained.
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court passed an interim order staying the operation of the Madras High Court’s direction. Justice Vikram Nath issued notice in the matter and directed that proceedings in the pending writ petition before the Madras High Court would also remain stayed.
The court recorded in its order:
“Counsel for the respondent is granted two weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.”
Arguments Before The Supreme Court:
Appearing for Sethupathi, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi strongly criticised the High Court’s order and submitted that it was blatantly in disregard of settled legal principles.
Justice Vikram Nath then asked the court to hear submissions from Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for KR Periakaruppan of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK).
Singhvi further argued that if any judicial order deserved strong criticism, it was the order passed by the High Court. He contended that the respondent would attempt to argue that the floor test process had already commenced.
Rohatgi, defending the challenge before the High Court, informed the Bench that his client had lost the election by a margin of a single vote.
The Bench questioned the legal course adopted by the respondent and asked whether a writ petition could be pursued in such circumstances.
Bench said,
“So you pursue a writ petition?”
Justice Sandeep Mehta then made strong observations regarding the High Court’s approach in entertaining the matter under Article 226 despite acknowledging the availability of an election petition remedy.
Justice Mehta remarked,
“You want a reasoned order on the stay as well? This is atrocious, to say the least. The High Court says the remedy is an election petition, yet still entertains a petition under Article 226,”
Explaining the factual dispute, Rohatgi submitted that a postal ballot intended for his constituency had allegedly been sent to another constituency and opened there. According to him, the ballot was in favour of his client but was ultimately discarded by the Returning Officer. He argued that had the ballot reached the correct constituency, the election result would have ended in a tie.
Rohatgi also contended that there was no effective statutory remedy available to his client in the election proceedings. Referring to the stand taken in the election petition, he submitted that the respondents themselves had stated there was no provision to address the grievance raised by him.
During the course of the hearing, Rohatgi also referred to political developments surrounding the trust vote and stated that the DMK had walked out of the voting process.
Singhvi, however, questioned the urgency with which the matter had been taken up by the High Court. He pointed out that the writ petition had been filed on a Saturday night after the matter was effectively over and questioned how the Madras High Court could list and hear the case for nearly two hours on a Sunday.
Rohatgi defended the listing of the matter and responded by asking why such a hearing could not take place.
The exchange prompted a lighter moment in the courtroom, with the Bench remarking in jest that Mr. Rohatgi could get anything done.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of India agreed to urgently list the plea filed by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLAR. Seenivasa Sethupathi challenging an interim order of the Madras High Court that restrained him from participating in any floor test or voting process in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, following which the Court agreed to hear it today.
Sethupathi, who won from No.185 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency in Sivagangai district by a margin of just one vote against DMK leader and former minister KR Periakaruppan, has challenged the High Court’s interim restraint order.
Earlier Madras High Court Order:
Earlier, the Madras High Court had restrained R Seenivasa Sethupathi 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.
It also directed preservation of all election-related records, including EVM data, postal ballot materials, counting sheets, statutory forms, and video recordings of the counting and scrutiny process, to ensure evidence is secured for further adjudication.
Sethupathi has now approached the Supreme Court challenging the interim restraint order, arguing that it severely affects his rights as an elected representative. The petition has been filed through advocates Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, Rupali Samuel and Yash S. Vijay.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared before the Supreme Court on behalf of Sethupathi and challenged the legality of the High Court’s order. Representing Periakaruppan, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi opposed the plea.
By staying both the High Court’s order and the ongoing proceedings before it, the apex court has, for the time being, restored Sethupathi’s ability to participate in Assembly proceedings, including any trust vote or floor test that may arise during the pendency of the dispute.
Case Title: Seenivasa Sethupathi Vs Periakaruppan
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES