Madras High Court Reserves Verdict on Plea Alleging Misrouted Postal Ballot in Tamil Nadu Assembly Polls

May 11, 2026 : The Madras High Court on Monday reserved its verdict 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 bearing the same name during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, potentially affecting the final result decided by a margin of one vote.

Periakaruppan, who contested from the Tiruppattur Assembly constituency in Sivagangai district, contended that a postal ballot cast in his favour for Constituency No. 185 Tiruppattur was mistakenly routed to Constituency No. 50 Tiruppattur in Tiruppattur district. According to the petitioner, the vote was consequently excluded from counting, while TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi was declared elected by a solitary vote margin.

Earlier, during a special Sunday sitting, a Division Bench comprising Justice L Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthil Kumar had issued notice to the Election Commission of India, seeking clarification on the legal and procedural framework governing correction or redirection of wrongly assigned postal ballots.

The High Court examined whether the existing electoral framework provided any statutory or administrative mechanism to rectify an inter-constituency postal ballot error. The Bench questioned the Election Commission regarding the remedy available when a postal ballot is delivered to the wrong Returning Officer and subsequently rejected.

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that neither the Representation of the People Act, 1951 nor the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 specifically addressed such an unusual factual situation. It was submitted that while Rule 54A regulates scrutiny of postal ballots, it does not contemplate errors involving misrouting between constituencies. The petitioner therefore invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as the only effective remedy to preserve electoral justice.

The petitioner further maintained that the dispute did not concern recounting of votes, but rather the inclusion of a valid vote in the correct constituency. It was argued that the alleged administrative lapse directly impacted the electoral outcome given the razor-thin margin and could potentially trigger statutory consequences relating to tie resolution under election law principles.

Opposing the plea, counsel for the returned candidate contended that the challenge effectively questioned the election result and therefore fell within the exclusive domain of an election petition under Article 329(b) of the Constitution. It was argued that the Returning Officer becomes functus officio upon declaration of results and that writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to indirectly reopen electoral adjudication or secure recount-like relief.

The defence further submitted that the petitioner’s representations had already been examined by the Election Commission and any grievance regarding those decisions must be pursued before the designated election tribunal rather than through a constitutional writ petition.

The Election Commission also argued that disputes arising after declaration of results concerning the validity or impact of votes should ordinarily be adjudicated through the statutory election petition mechanism, cautioning the Court against exercising writ jurisdiction in matters affecting the finality of electoral outcomes.

The matter assumed urgency amid ongoing post-election developments in the constituency, where the declared winner was yet to formally assume office.