The Madras High Court, on Tuesday, May 12, restrained Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA R Seenivasa Sethupathi from participating in the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly until further orders. The interim order was passed in connection with a plea filed by former Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Minister KR Periakaruppan alleging a postal ballot mix-up in the Tirupattur Assembly constituency election. In the recent Assembly election, the former Minister lost to the TVK legislator by a margin of a single vote.
Justices L Victoria Gowri and N Senthilkumar passed the interim order on a writ petition filed by Periakaruppan, who claimed that he lost the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election from Tirupattur constituency in Sivaganga district by one vote because a postal ballot cast in his favour was wrongly sent to another constituency with the same name in Tirupattur district.
Periakaruppan contended before the court that constituency No. 50 and constituency No. 185 in Tamil Nadu both bear the name “Tirupattur”, resulting in confusion during the handling of postal ballots.
Senior counsels Mukul Rohatgi and NR Elango, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a postal vote cast in favour of Periakaruppan in Tirupattur constituency in Sivaganga district was inadvertently despatched to Tirupattur constituency in Tirupattur district.
The petitioner argued that if the postal ballot had been properly redirected and counted, both candidates would have secured an equal number of votes, necessitating the declaration of the winner through a draw of lots as per election procedure.
The counsel also submitted an affidavit by S Rajendran, the counting agent for DMK candidate A Nallathambi in Tirupattur district, who stated that one postal vote was kept aside during counting because it had been cast in favour of Periakaruppan, who was contesting from Sivaganga district.
Rajendran allegedly informed Periakaruppan about the ballot on May 5, a day after the results were declared, prompting the former minister to submit representations before election authorities and subsequently approach the High Court.
During the hearing, the Election Commission of India (ECI) opposed the maintainability of the writ petition. Senior advocate G Rajagopalan, appearing for the ECI, submitted before the court that “the moment results are declared, our hands are tied,” arguing that any challenge to the election result could only be pursued through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act.
The ECI also argued that there were sufficient procedural safeguards in place to prevent postal ballots from being sent to the wrong constituency and described the petitioner’s claims as “highly improbable”.
Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the TVK MLA, argued that the plea was “a clever camouflage of an election petition into a writ petition” and contended that the Returning Officer had become “functus officio” after the declaration of results.
Questioning the ECI over its response to the alleged ballot mix-up, the High Court observed, “How can the ECI say it has become functus officio when the primary issue is one ballot paper went to one constituency from another?”
The bench also sought details on the action taken by election authorities after receiving representations from the petitioner through email.
Periakaruppan has sought directions to secure the allegedly misplaced postal ballot, include it in the counting process for Tirupattur constituency in Sivaganga district, and provide video footage of the reverification process conducted during counting.
The matter was heard during a special sitting convened during the court’s summer vacation owing to the urgency cited by the petitioner.
