The Madras High Court on Monday, September 28, rejected an election petition filed by former Minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) candidate KR Periyakaruppan challenging the election of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA R Seenivasa Sethupathy from the Tiruppattur constituency in Sivaganga district. Sethupathy had defeated Periyakaruppan by just one vote in the 2026 Assembly elections.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan allowed an application filed by Sethupathy seeking the rejection of the election petition at the threshold, without the matter proceeding to trial.
Sethupathy secured 83,375 votes in the election held on April 23, while Periyakaruppan polled 83,374 votes. The results were declared on May 4.
Periyakaruppan's election petition primarily centred on an alleged mix-up involving a postal ballot. Tamil Nadu has two Assembly constituencies named Tiruppattur — one in Sivaganga district (constituency number 185) and another in Tiruppattur district (constituency number 50).
Periyakaruppan alleged that a postal ballot meant for the Tiruppattur constituency in Sivaganga was wrongly sent to the constituency with the same name in Tiruppattur district and was not subsequently forwarded to the correct constituency.
To support the allegation, he relied on an affidavit by S Rajendran, the counting agent of DMK candidate A Nallathambi, who contested from the Tiruppattur constituency in Tiruppattur district. Rajendran claimed to have come across the postal ballot in question.
The High Court, however, said the allegation was not supported by sufficient material to establish how the alleged mix-up occurred or whether it had any effect on the election result.
“The allegation regarding the alleged wrong receipt of one postal ballot rests substantially upon the affidavit of the election agent and, in the absence of any supporting material, the manner in which such alleged irregularity occurred and its actual effect upon the result of the election remains unsubstantiated,” Justice Ilanthiraiyan observed, according to The Hindu.
The court also accepted the argument advanced by Sethupathy’s senior counsel V Raghavachari that election officials use constituency numbers, rather than constituency names, to identify postal ballots.
The court noted that every postal ballot is accompanied by Form 13C, which contains details including the constituency number, name, district and complete address. Postal ballots are deposited at facilitation centres under Rule 18A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, after which election officials are responsible for transporting them to the appropriate destination.
Periyakaruppan had also raised other objections relating to the counting and re-verification of postal ballots and alleged discrepancies in election records. These claims were contested by Sethupathy's side.
The court noted that there was no material demonstrating a violation of the prescribed procedure that could have materially affected the election result.
“In the absence of any foundational material establishing that exactly one postal ballot was received in the wrong constituency and that such alleged irregularity had any material effect upon the election result, the said allegation, by itself, cannot constitute a complete cause of action,” the judge held.
The election petition was consequently rejected at the threshold, leaving Sethupathy's one-vote victory intact.
In the recently held Assembly elections, Periyakaruppan had secured 1,183 postal votes, while Sethupathy got 365 postal votes. Election officials had also re-verified the 306 rejected postal ballots following the one-vote result, but no valid vote was found that could alter the outcome.