Back
LAW

SC stays Madras HC order barring TVK MLA from TN Assembly amid confidence vote

The Supreme Court stayed a Madras High Court order restraining TVK MLA-elect Sreenivasa Sethupathi from participating in the Tamil Nadu Assembly during a confidence motion. The court criticized the high court's intervention in an election dispute and directed immediate uploading of its order while keeping counter affidavits due in two weeks. The Assembly confidence vote proceeded, with the government securing victory as DMK walked out in protest.

Why It Matters

This Supreme Court intervention clarifies the remit for election-dispute remedies post-declaration and directly affects the legality of a floor test amid ongoing disputes over a postal ballot.

Timeline

3 Events

TN Assembly confidence motion concludes; government wins; DMK boycott noted

May 13, 2026

The confidence motion was in progress inside the Assembly when the Supreme Court directed its order. The final tally was 144 votes in favour of the government, 22 against, with five abstentions. The DMK walked out of the Assembly ahead of the motion, and Udhayanidhi Stalin announced that the party would boycott the proceedings.

Supreme Court stays Madras HC order and halts further proceedings

May 13, 2026

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi suspended the operation of the Madras High Court's interim order and stayed further proceedings before the high court. The court said the writ petition ought not to have been entertained given the constitutional scheme governing election disputes and issued notice with two weeks for counter affidavits. It also directed the order be uploaded immediately on the Supreme Court website due to the ongoing confidence motion in the Assembly.

Madras High Court restrains TVK MLA from Tamil Nadu Assembly over postal ballot dispute

May 12, 2026

The Madras High Court passed an interim order restraining TVK MLA-elect Sreenivasa Sethupathi from participating in the Tamil Nadu Assembly in a dispute involving a postal ballot. The court described the matter as involving an 'administrative failure' by election authorities and said limited judicial intervention under Article 226 was justified to preserve electoral records and evidence, noting that Sethupathi's participation in the floor test could have consequences 'far beyond the constituency and affect the constitutional governance of the State.'