Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA R Seenivasa Sethupathi on Tuesday approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Madras High Court’s interim order restraining him from participating in the floor test scheduled to take place in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on Wednesday.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and sought urgent listing in view of the impending trust vote in the Assembly. Taking note of the urgency involved, the CJI agreed to list the matter for hearing on Wednesday.
Earlier in the day, the High Court restrained Sethupathi from participating in proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, following a petition filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (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 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 TVK MLA moves Supreme Court against Madras High Court order barring him from Tamil Nadu Assembly floor test appeared first on India Legal.