Published May 13, 2026 | 2:15 PM ⚊ Updated May 13, 2026 | 2:15 PM
The Supreme Court of India. (iStock)
Synoipsis: In the recently concluded Tamil Nadu Assembly election, DMK candidate K. R. Periyakaruppan lost the Tiruppathur Assembly constituency in Sivaganga district to Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam candidate Srinivasa Sethupathi by a margin of just one vote. Claiming that postal ballots meant for the Sivaganga district Tiruppathur constituency were wrongly sent to Tiruppathur district, Periyakaruppan had moved the Madras High Court seeking a direction for recounting of votes.
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday, 13 May, stayed the Madras High Court order restraining Srinivasa Sethupathi from participating in the confidence vote held in the Tamil Nadu Assembly.
In the recently concluded Tamil Nadu Assembly election, DMK candidate K. R. Periyakaruppan lost the Tiruppathur Assembly constituency in Sivaganga district to Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam candidate Srinivasa Sethupathi by a margin of just one vote.
Claiming that postal ballots meant for the Sivaganga district Tiruppathur constituency were wrongly sent to Tiruppathur district, Periyakaruppan had moved the Madras High Court seeking a direction for recounting of votes. Hearing the plea, the High Court had restrained Srinivasa Sethupathi from participating in the confidence vote conducted in the Tamil Nadu Assembly.
Also Read: ‘One-vote’ victory: Madras High Court bars Tiruppathur TVK MLA from participating in trust vote
Challenging the High Court order, Srinivasa Sethupathi approached the Supreme Court. The appeal came up for hearing before a Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjiv Khanna Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Srinivasa Sethupathi, argued that the confidence vote was crucial for determining the majority of the government and sought an interim stay on the Madras High Court order.
The judges, however, said they would first like to hear the arguments of the respondent Periyakaruppan before hearing the petitioner’s submissions.
The Bench also questioned how a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution had been entertained by the High Court in the matter and observed that the issue ought to have been pursued as an election petition.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Periyakaruppan, argued that the petition had been filed because the election authorities had failed in their duties, depriving his client of a fair chance of victory.
The Supreme Court judges observed that the High Court should not have passed such an order and remarked that the direction was “very severe”.
Also Read: When TVK won with a single vote
Responding to this, Periyakaruppan’s counsel pointed out that their candidate had lost by just one vote and argued that the situation arose only because postal ballots were wrongly sent to another constituency. The counsel further submitted that such an incident had not been witnessed in the last 75 years.
The respondent’s side also argued that the matter was not about the confidence vote or proving the government’s majority since the DMK had already walked out during the proceedings. Instead, it concerned the defeat of a candidate and the need to correct an electoral irregularity.
Counsel for Srinivasa Sethupathi countered that since the DMK had abstained from the confidence vote through a walkout, the issue no longer affected the confidence motion and should therefore be treated purely as an election dispute.
The petitioner’s counsel also questioned the urgency with which the case was taken up by the Madras High Court, pointing out that the plea was filed on a Saturday night and listed for hearing on Sunday. “What kind of procedure is this?” the counsel asked, arguing that the extraordinary urgency required an explanation.
Periyakaruppan’s side defended the listing, saying urgent matters could be heard based on the nature and urgency of the case, and noted that even the Supreme Court had conducted late-night hearings in several important cases.
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court stayed further proceedings before the Madras High Court in connection with the Tiruppathur election dispute.
The apex court also stayed the High Court’s order restraining Srinivasa Sethupathi from participating in the confidence vote in the Tamil Nadu Assembly.
The court issued notice to Periyakaruppan and the Election Commission, directing them to file their responses within two weeks, and adjourned the matter for further hearing.
(With inputs from Subash Chandra Bose)
