TVK MLA Moves Supreme Court Against Madras HC Order Restricting Voting In Tamil Nadu Floor Test Case

The plea was mentioned for urgent listing before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

Taking note of the urgency, the Supreme Court agreed to list the matter for hearing on the next day.

The challenge arises from the High Court’s interim restraint on the MLA’s voting rights in the ongoing political and legislative dispute concerning floor test proceedings in the State Assembly.

The High Court today 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.

Mentioning Date: May 12, 2026