One-Vote Victory Dispute: Madras High Court Bars TVK MLA Seenivasa Sethupathi from Participating in Floor Test

The Madras High Court on Tuesday restricted Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA Seenivasa Sethupathi from participating in any floor motion in the 17th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, including trust votes, while hearing a plea by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader K R Periakaruppan, who lost the Tiruppattur Assembly seat by a margin of one vote.

The bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthil Kumar passed the interim order while making it clear that the direction should not be treated either as setting aside Sethupathi’s election or as confirming the petitioner’s claim.

The interim order assumes significance as the newly formed TVK-led government headed by actor-turned-politician C Joseph Vijay is scheduled to face a crucial floor test in the Tamil Nadu Assembly on Wednesday to prove its majority.

The dispute relates to the Tiruppattur constituency in Sivaganga district, where TVK candidate Sethupathi defeated former DMK minister Periakaruppan by a single vote in the recently concluded Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.

Periakaruppan moved the high court alleging that one postal ballot belonging to Tiruppattur constituency was mistakenly sent to another constituency bearing the same name, Tiruppattur in Tiruppattur district, and was rejected there instead of being redirected to the correct constituency for counting. According to him, had the postal ballot been counted in the proper constituency, the election result could have changed.

The high court in a special sitting on Sunday had sought response from the Election Commission of India (ECI) on the petitioner’s grievance and questioned why no action was taken on the representations submitted by him after the counting process.

During the Sunday hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Periakaruppan, described the case as a “unique and peculiar” situation arising from a postal ballot allegedly being sent to the wrong constituency due to the similarity in names. He argued that the Returning Officer who received the ballot ought to have redirected it to the correct constituency instead of rejecting it. Rohatgi had submitted that if the disputed vote were counted in Tiruppattur constituency, the contest would end in a tie, requiring a draw of lots under election rules.

Senior Advocate N R Elango, also appearing for the petitioner, argued that election laws did not contemplate such an extraordinary situation and therefore the petitioner was compelled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the high court instead of filing an election petition.

Appearing for Sethupathi, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi opposed the maintainability of the writ plea and argued that any challenge to an election result could only be adjudicated through an election petition under the statutory framework governing elections. He had contended that the petitioner was indirectly seeking to restrain an elected representative from exercising legislative rights without following the prescribed election dispute mechanism.

The Election Commission had also argued before the court that after declaration of results, the Returning Officer becomes functus officio and any dispute relating to the election process must be raised only through an election petition.

However, the bench had questioned the ECI’s stand and observed that the core issue raised by the petitioner concerned the handling of a disputed postal ballot. Court had asked the poll body to explain its response to the representations alleging that a postal ballot belonging to one constituency was wrongly rejected in another constituency.

Case Title: KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others

Order Date: May 12, 2026

Bench: Justice L Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthil Kumar