Madras HC bars TVK MLA from Assembly voting over one-vote election dispute

In a setback to the TVK, the Madras High Court on Tuesday (May 12) restrained its candidate R Seenivasa Sethupathi from taking part in any legislative proceedings in the Tamil Nadu Assembly after DMK leader KR Periakaruppan challenged his election from the Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency. Following the order, Sethupathi will be barred from taking part in Assembly proceedings for now.

The development comes after the DMK candidate Periakaruppan lost to Sethupathi by one vote. Periakaruppan alleged in his election petition that a postal ballot was not counted as it was sent to the wrong constituency.

He further alleged that the counting process was marred with several other irregularities, reported the Bar and Bench.

Court’s interim restriction

During the hearing, the bench of Justices Victoria Gowri and Senthilkumar came to the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out. Consequently, it restrained the TVK candidate from participating in any Assembly proceedings, such as confidence motion, no-confidence motion, trust vote or any voting proceeding, where the numerical strength of the House will be tested.

Also Read: TVK supporters rally outside Vijay house amid govt fomation talks

However, the Bench clarified that its order would not be treated as setting aside Sethupathi’s election, adding that the order also would not confer any right on Periakaruppan to be declared elected from the related constituency.

Impact on Assembly numbers

The interim order is expected to have an immediate bearing on the numerical strength of the TVK-led alliance in the 234-member Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, where the combine presently holds 120 members. Following Tuesday’s direction, only 119 members from the alliance would, for the present, be entitled to participate in legislative proceedings.

Also Read: Who are the nine ministers sworn in with Vijay as Tamil Nadu CM?

In its order, the Madras High Court also directed the official respondents to secure and preserve all records connected with the counting of votes in No.185 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency held on May 4, 2026.

Preservation of election records

The records directed to be preserved include the consolidated counting abstract, statutory forms, round-wise counting sheets, EVM vote account records, postal ballot materials, rejected covers and ballot papers, declarations, envelopes, proceedings relating to reverification and all connected records.

Also Read: Tamil anthem row: Aadhav Arjuna offers explanation, says TVK govt will follow old practice

The Bench further directed that if any postal ballot relating to No.185 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency had been received, handled, retained or rejected at No.50 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency, the same shall be separately identified, sealed, secured and preserved without being opened or tampered with.

It also ordered preservation of videographic footage, in original electronic form, along with backup copies, relating to counting, scrutiny, rejection and reverification of postal ballots, if any. The respondents were restrained from destroying, altering, transferring or parting with custody of such materials except in accordance with law and subject to further orders.

Scope of court direction

Clarifying the scope of its direction, the Court observed that the order shall not be construed as a direction for recounting, reaccounting, reopening of ballot papers, validation of rejected postal ballots or interference with the declared result.

It also left open the rights and contentions of all parties, including remedies under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Also Read: TN govt formation: CPI, CPM likely to back Vijay’s TVK as numbers near majority mark

A day earlier, the Court had directed the Election Commission to explain, through an affidavit, why no response was issued to representations made by KR Periakaruppan concerning a postal ballot allegedly sent to the wrong Tiruppattur constituency.

In his plea, Periakaruppan alleged serious irregularities in counting, including an 18-vote discrepancy in EVM figures and the wrongful rejection of a postal ballot intended for No.185 Tiruppattur.

ECI’s stand in court

Appearing in the matter, ECI submitted that it was only the custodian of records and not the authority to determine the winner. It was further submitted that any factual determination would require opening sealed postal ballots and undertaking a trial-like verification process.