BackLAW
Postal ballot dispute: Madras HC restrains Tiruppattur MLA-elect from floor test
The Madras High Court issued an interim order restraining Seenivasa Sethupathi, the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam MLA-elect from Tiruppattur, from participating in the Assembly floor test on May 13 amid a postal ballot dispute. The court also directed preservation of all electoral records while the matter heads to higher scrutiny, and Sethupathi promptly challenged the order in the Supreme Court.
Why It Matters
The ruling centers on a disputed postal ballot and the preservation of crucial electoral evidence, which could affect the results and the formation of government. It demonstrates judicial intervention in the electoral process to safeguard potential challenges to an election outcome.
Timeline
3 Events
May 12, 2026 – Sethupathi moves Supreme Court against the High Court order
May 12, 2026
Within hours of the High Court's interim order, Seenivasa Sethupathi moved the Supreme Court challenging the Madras High Court’s direction restraining his participation in the floor test and sought relief from the apex court.
May 12, 2026 – Madras High Court interim order restrains floor test
May 12, 2026
The Madras High Court, in an interim order, restrained TVK MLA-elect Seenivasa Sethupathi from participating in the State Assembly and in the floor test and confidence motion scheduled for May 13. The bench directed preservation of all counting records, postal ballots, rejected ballot covers, EVM records, and videographic footage connected to the elections. The court clarified that the order is not a recount and emphasized that the floor test could have broad constitutional consequences if Sethupathi’s vote were decisive. It also criticized election authorities for a lapse in handling a postal ballot that allegedly belonged to another constituency.
May 11, 2026 – Madras High Court hearing on postal ballot dispute
May 11, 2026
During the May 11 hearing, the Election Commission of India argued that it had no jurisdiction to act on DMK leader KR Periyakaruppan’s complaint about a disputed postal ballot after results were declared for the Tiruppattur assembly seat, and that Periyakaruppan should have filed an election petition. The court noted that the allegations related to an administrative failure to return a wrongly sent postal ballot to the correct constituency before counting ended, a rare situation warranting limited judicial intervention, and said the writ petition could be considered to preserve records rather than bypass established electoral barriers.