The Madras High Court on Sunday issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a petition filed by DMK leader and former Co-operatives Minister KR Periakaruppan, who alleged that a postal ballot was wrongly processed between two Assembly constituencies sharing the same name, allegedly affecting the final result by a margin of one vote in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.
The petition arises from the Tiruppattur constituency dispute, where TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi was declared elected by a single vote margin. The petitioner claimed that a valid postal ballot meant for one Tiruppattur constituency was mistakenly routed to another constituency with the same name, leading to the improper exclusion of a decisive vote.
In a special Sunday sitting, the Division Bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthil Kumar examined whether any statutory or administrative procedure existed under the electoral framework to correct such an inter-constituency postal ballot error. The Court queried the Election Commission on the remedial mechanism available when a postal ballot was delivered to the wrong Returning Officer and subsequently rejected.
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, did not specifically address this rare factual situation. It was submitted that Rule 54A governs postal ballot scrutiny but does not contemplate misrouting between constituencies, and therefore the constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is the only effective remedy to ensure electoral justice.
The petitioner’s side further contended that the issue is not one of recounting votes but of ensuring that a valid vote is counted in the correct constituency. It was argued that the alleged administrative error has a direct bearing on the electoral outcome, given the extremely narrow margin, and could even trigger statutory consequences such as a tie resolution process under election law principles.
Opposing the plea, counsel for the winning candidate argued that the dispute essentially challenges the election result and therefore falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of an election petition under Article 329(b) of the Constitution. It was contended that the Returning Officer becomes functus officio after declaration of results, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used to indirectly reopen electoral adjudication or seek recount-like relief.
The defence further submitted that the petitioner’s representations were already considered by the Election Commission, and any grievance relating to correctness of those decisions must be agitated before the designated election tribunal rather than through constitutional writ proceedings.
The Election Commission, through its counsel, also maintained that post-declaration disputes concerning validity or effect of votes must ordinarily be raised through an election petition mechanism, and that the Court should be cautious in exercising writ jurisdiction in matters touching upon the finality of electoral results.
The matter gained urgency in view of the ongoing post-election developments in the constituency, where the declared winner is yet to complete formal assumption of office. The High Court has now called for the Election Commission’s clarification on the procedural and legal framework governing correction or redirection of wrongly assigned postal ballots and will consider the issue further after receiving responses from the electoral authority.
The post Tamil Nadu Assembly elections: Madras High Court issues notice to Election Commission on DMK plea alleging postal ballot error appeared first on India Legal.