Published May 12, 2026 | 11:10 AM ⚊ Updated May 12, 2026 | 3:44 PM
TVK's Seenivasa Sethupathy R during campaigning.
Synopsis: The Madras High Court restrained Seenivasa Sethupathy R, the TVK MLA-elect from Tiruppathur constituency from participating in the upcoming trust vote proceedings in the Tamil Nadu Assembly. The interim order was passed on a petition filed by KR Periyakaruppan, the DMK candidate who contested from Tiruppathur. Sethupathy has approched the Supreme Court against the order with the court set to hear the matter on Wednesday.
The Madras High Court on Tuesday, 12 May, restrained Seenivasa Sethupathy R, the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA-elect from Tiruppathur constituency from participating in the upcoming trust vote proceedings in the Tamil Nadu Assembly.
The interim order was passed on a petition filed by KR Periyakaruppan, the DMK candidate who contested from the Tiruppathur Assembly constituency in Sivaganga district, and was defeated by Sethupathy with a margin of just one vote. Sethupathy secured 83,375 votes, while Periakaruppan fell short of the victory by one vote, with 83,374 votes.
Later in the day, the MLA-elect approached the Supreme Court, requesting an urgent hearing against the High Court order. The apex court agreed to list the matter for hearing on Wednesday.
In response, Periyakaruppan has filed a caveat petition urging the court not to pass any order or grant interim relief without hearing his side of the case.
Also Read: When TVK won with a single vote
The High Court in its order also restrained Sethupathi from obtaining vote-counting documents related to the election and directed the Election Commission to furnish documents related to the counting of votes, including postal ballots, votes recorded in electronic voting machines (EVMs), and CCTV footage from the counting process.
In addition, the High Court directed the Election Commission to file its response in the matter and adjourned the hearing to 26 May.
The court had earlier directed election authorities to file an affidavit explaining why they did not respond to Periakaruppan’s representation regarding the alleged irregularities.
During the previous hearing, the Election Commission informed the court that its role in the election process had concluded following the declaration of results.
The Election Commission further argued that allegations claiming postal votes were sent to a different constituency were “imaginary” and unsupported by evidence.
However, counsel appearing for Periyakaruppan contended that the claim was incorrect and argued that an election official had already acknowledged that postal votes had been mistakenly sent to another constituency.
Periyakaruppan’s side further argued that the Election Commission had not denied the possibility of postal ballots being transferred to the wrong constituency. They also submitted that election laws do not clearly specify the procedure to be followed if postal votes are mistakenly sent to another constituency.
(With inputs from Subash Chandra Bose.)
