In a writ petition filed before the Madras High Court seeking directions for the respondents to secure the postal votes belonging to No. 185, Tiruppattur Assembly constituency, which were wrongly sent to No. 50, Tiruppattur Assembly constituency, for the elections conducted for the 17th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 23-04-2026, a Division Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri and Justice N. Senthilkumar ordered for an interim injunction restraining R. Seenivasa Sethupathi, a TVK MLA, from taking part in any floor test and passed directions for the preservation of records of counting of votes.
The facts of the present case were that a postal ballot related to a concluded election in one constituency was allegedly diverted to another constituency bearing a similar nomenclature, and was rejected there, not because of the invalidity of votes, impersonations, defective marking, or statutory disqualification, but only because it was found in a different constituency.
The Court stated that democracy is sustained by the living faith of citizens that every vote lawfully cast is received, preserved, counted, and accounted for in accordance with law. The Court stated that it was conscious of the constitutional limitation under Article 329(b) and the statutory mandate under Sections 80 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which ordinarily requires all election disputes to be adjudicated only by an election petition. However, the Court found that the present case stood on a different footing since the grievance projected was not a routine challenge to counting, recounting, acceptance, or rejection of votes simpliciter.
The Court stated that the present controversy resulted from the failure of the constitutional authorities to restore an admittedly misdirected postal ballot to its proper constituency before the conclusion of the counting process. It was said that the maintainability of the present petition was based on the extraordinary factual situation and the constitutional necessity to ensure that the remedy of the election petition itself does not become illusory by disappearance or destruction of the foundational electoral material. The Court mentioned that the writ petition was sustained for the limited purpose of preserving electoral integrity and securing the ends of constitutional justice in a situation that the Legislature itself had not foreseen while enacting Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act.
The Court noted that the margin of victory was only one vote, that there was an alleged discrepancy of 18 EVM votes between two official sources, and that a postal ballot of No. 185 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency was rejected in another constituency instead of being transmitted to the competent Returning Officer.
It was stated that the floor test is not an ordinary legislative sitting and that participation in the same may determine the survival or fall of a government. The Court said that if R. Seenivasa Sethupathi participates in the proceedings and his vote becomes decisive, the consequence would travel far beyond the constituency. Neither did the Court declare R. Seenivasa Sethupathi’s election as void, nor did it seat the petitioner in his place. The Court said that it was only considering whether, pending prima facie scrutiny of serious electoral anomalies in a one-vote result, the returned candidate should be permitted to participate in the proceedings where his vote may alter the balance of power in the House.
The Court stated that no prejudice would be caused to R. Seenivasa Sethupathi if he were temporarily restrained from participating in the floor test, pending production of records and filing of counter-affidavits. However, it was said that if he is permitted to participate and his vote becomes decisive, the injury caused to the petitioner as well as the purity of the electoral process would be incapable of meaningful correction.
On 10-05-2026, the Chief Electoral Officer was directed to file an affidavit stating that the petitioner had not produced any supporting material or documentary evidence substantiating the allegations. The affidavit also stated that the transfer of a postal ballot from one Assembly Constituency to another was neither contemplated nor permitted under the existing statutory framework. The Court said that the respondents’ stand itself revealed a procedural vacuum in the electoral framework insofar as situations involving the mistaken transmission of postal ballots from one constituency to another are concerned.
It was said that the emergence of such an unprecedented situation, coupled with the admitted absence of any corrective statutory procedure, persuaded the Court to hold that the present case travels beyond the contours of an ordinary election dispute simpliciter. The Court observed that the conduct of the Returning Officer reflected a disturbing lapse in the discharge of the statutory obligations cast upon the election authorities entrusted with the preservation of electoral purity. It was said that rejecting a vote relevant to a live electoral process undermined the checks and balances built into the electoral architecture.
Thus, the Court ordered an interim injunction to restrain R. Seenivasa Sethupathi from voting or taking part in any floor test or any voting proceeding in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, where the numerical strength of the House is tested, until further orders. The Court clarified that the interim order should not be construed as setting aside the declaration of the election of Sethupathi and directed the official respondents to preserve all records relating to the counting of votes in No. 185 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency held on 04-05-2026.
It was directed that the records were to include the consolidated counting abstract, statutory forms, round-wise counting sheets, EVM vote account records, postal ballot records, rejected postal ballot covers, rejected postal ballot papers, declarations, envelopes, proceedings relating to reverification of rejected postal ballots, and all connected materials. The Court directed that if any postal ballot was received, handled, retained, or rejected at No. 50, Tiruppatur Assembly Constituency, it should be identified, sealed, secured, and preserved separately, without tampering. The Court also directed that the video footage be preserved along with backup copies.
The respondents were directed to file their counter-affidavits on or before 19-06-2026.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Mukul Rohatgi (Sr. Counsel), Mr. N.R. Elango (Sr. Counsel), Mr. Aswin Prasanna, Mr. S. Agilesh Kumar
For Respondents – Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi (Sr. Counsel), Mr. V. Raghavachari (Sr. Counsel), Mr. G. Rajagopalan, Mr. Tarun Rao Kallakuru, Mr. K.P. Anantha Krishnan, Mr. Pranjal Agarwal
