BREAKING: Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Barring TVK MLA From Voting In Floor Test
Supreme Court stayed the Madras High Court order restraining TVK MLA R Sreenivasa Sethupathi from voting in floor tests in the Tamil Nadu Assembly
The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed a Madras High Court order restraining TVK MLA R. Sreenivasa Sethupathi from participating in floor tests in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, observing that the High Court’s direction was “atrocious to say the least.”
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi was hearing Sethupathi’s challenge against the High Court order passed in a plea filed by DMK leader K.R. Periakaruppan, who had questioned the validity of Sethupathi’s one-vote victory from the Tiruppattur Assembly constituency.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Sethupathi, while Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented Periakaruppan.
At the outset, Rohatgi submitted before the Court, “Case is that I lost by one vote.”
The bench questioned the maintainability of the proceedings before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and sought clarification regarding the stand of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
“How do you file a 226? Is ECI supporting the petitioner or respondent?” the Court asked.
Singhvi responded that the Election Commission had supported Sethupathi’s stand.
Reacting sharply to the High Court’s interim order, the bench observed, “This is atrocious to say the least!”
The Court further remarked that despite holding that an election petition was maintainable, the High Court had nevertheless proceeded to pass an interim stay order restraining an elected MLA from voting.
“High Court says election petition is maintainable and yet passes a stay order!” the bench observed.
Defending the High Court proceedings, Rohatgi explained that the dispute arose due to an alleged mix-up involving a postal ballot.
“This is constituency 185, there is constituency of the same name. It transpired that one postal ballot reached constituency 50. Had it come to the correct postal address, there would have been a tie,” Rohatgi submitted.
He further argued that the Election Commission’s stand that there was no provision for recounting in such circumstances was incorrect.
“In the counter, ECI says there is no provision. Section 100 provides counting with regard to votes before the officer,” Rohatgi contended.
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court issued notice in the matter and granted two weeks’ time to the respondent to file a reply. “In the meantime, the order shall remain stayed. Further proceedings before the High Court also stayed,” the Court directed.
The case relates to the closely contested Tiruppattur Assembly election in which Sethupathi defeated Periakaruppan by a margin of a single vote, leading to legal proceedings challenging the result and the counting process.
The High Court on May 12, 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 assumed 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.
Case Title: Sreenivasa Sethupathi Vs KR. Periakaruppan
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi
Hearing Date: May 13, 2026