The Supreme Court of India agreed to urgently hear TVK MLA R Seenivasa Sethupathi’s plea challenging the Madras High Court order restraining him from voting or participating in Tamil Nadu Assembly floor tests, after Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi sought urgent listing before CJI Surya Kant.
The Supreme Court of India agreed to urgently list a plea filed by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA R. 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 on the next day.
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.
Today, 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.
Case Title: Seenivasa Sethupathi Vs Periakaruppan
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES