The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed an interim order passed by the Madras High Court restraining Sreenivasa Sethupathi, an MLA of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), from participating in the floor test in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi also stayed further proceedings before the High Court in the writ petition filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader KR Periakaruppan challenging Sethupathi’s election victory.
The matter had been mentioned on Tuesday before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant seeking urgent listing in view of the impending trust vote in the Tamil Nadu Assembly. Taking note of the urgency involved, the CJI agreed to list the matter for hearing on Wednesday.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the TVK MLA, argued that the High Court had committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against an election result despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy through an election petition. He also questioned the urgency with which the matter was heard by the High Court during the weekend.
The Bench orally observed that the High Court had itself acknowledged that an election petition was the appropriate statutory remedy, yet proceeded to entertain the writ proceedings and restrain an elected legislator from voting in the floor test.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Periakaruppan, defended the High Court proceedings, contending that the case involved exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Rohatgi submitted that Periakaruppan had contested from Constituency No. 185, Tiruppathur, and that a postal ballot cast in his favour was mistakenly delivered to another constituency bearing a similar name. According to the submission, had the postal ballot been counted, the election result would have ended in a tie.
The Apex Court stayed the operation of the High Court order while granting time to Periakaruppan to file a counter affidavit. During the hearing, Singhvi informed the Court that the floor test proceedings were already underway.
On May 7, the High Court had restrained Sethupathi from participating in proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, following a petition filed by DMK leader KR Periakaruppan challenging his election from the Tiruppattur Assembly constituency.
Sethupathi had defeated Periakaruppan by a margin of one vote in the Assembly election. The DMK leader subsequently approached the High Court contending that a postal ballot cast in his favour had not been counted because it was wrongly sent to another constituency.
While passing the interim order, the High Court observed that permitting Sethupathi to vote during the pendency of the dispute could potentially affect the stability of the government and held that the balance of convenience warranted restraint on his participation in the floor test.
The Division Bench of Justice Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar held that a prima facie case had been made out in the election dispute and passed an interim order restraining Sethupathi from voting or participating in any floor test, confidence motion, no-confidence motion, trust vote or any proceeding where the numerical strength of the House is tested, pending further orders. It clarified that the interim direction would not amount to setting aside Sethupathi’s election and would not confer any right on Periakaruppan to be declared elected from the constituency.
In his writ petition, Periakaruppan contended that a postal ballot meant for No. 185 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency in Sivagangai district was mistakenly sent to No. 50 Tiruppattur constituency in Tirupattur district and was subsequently rejected instead of being forwarded to the correct Returning Officer.
He further alleged discrepancies in the counting records, claiming that there was an 18-vote variation between the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) figures reflected in the consolidated round-wise counting abstract and the data published on the Election Commission of India (ECI) website.
The Bench directed the preservation and securing of all records connected with the counting process conducted on May 4, 2026, including consolidated counting abstracts, statutory forms, round-wise counting sheets, EVM vote account records, postal ballot records, rejected postal ballot covers and papers, declarations, envelopes and documents relating to re-verification of rejected postal ballots.
It further ordered that if any postal ballot pertaining to No. 185 Tiruppattur constituency had been received or retained at No.50 Tiruppattur constituency, the same must be separately identified, sealed and preserved without tampering or opening the material.
The High Court also directed the preservation of videographic footage relating to counting, scrutiny, rejection and re-verification of postal ballots in original electronic form, along with backup copies. The respondents were restrained from destroying, altering, transferring or parting with custody of the election material except in accordance with law and subject to further orders.
At the same time, the Bench clarified that its order should not be construed as directing recounting, reopening of ballot papers, revalidation of rejected postal ballots, or interference with the election result already declared. The High Court also kept open the rights and remedies available to all parties under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The counsel appearing for ECI submitted that it was merely the statutory authority responsible for maintaining election records and administering the electoral process, and not the adjudicatory forum to determine the rightful winner of the election. The Commission argued that once the election result was declared, the Returning Officer became functus officio, and any factual adjudication concerning disputed postal ballots would require reopening sealed records through a trial-like evidentiary exercise.
Periakaruppan further sought access to videographic footage relating to the mandatory re-verification process for rejected postal ballots and filed an interim application seeking an injunction restraining Sethupathi from participating in legislative proceedings pending adjudication of the writ petition. The petition did not seek a stay on Sethupathi taking oath as MLA but sought a restraint on his participation in legislative proceedings.
The post Supreme Court stays Madras High Court order restraining TVK MLA from participating in Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly floor test appeared first on India Legal.