SC to Hear TVK MLA R Seenivasa Sethupathi’s Plea Against Madras HC Order Barring Him From Tamil Nadu Assembly Floor Test

May 12, 2026 : The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to urgently hear a plea filed by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA R Seenivasa Sethupathi challenging an interim order of the Madras High Court that restrained him from participating in the floor test scheduled in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on Wednesday.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and sought immediate listing, citing the urgency arising from the impending trust vote in the Assembly. Taking note of the situation, the Chief Justice agreed to list the case for hearing on Wednesday.

Earlier in the day, the Madras High Court restrained Sethupathi from taking part in Assembly proceedings after hearing a petition filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader KR Periakaruppan, who challenged Sethupathi’s election from the Tiruppattur Assembly constituency.

Sethupathi had won the constituency by a margin of just one vote.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar observed that a prima facie case had been made out in the election dispute. The Bench consequently 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 may be tested, until further orders.

At the same time, the High Court clarified that the interim order did not amount to setting aside Sethupathi’s election and did not confer any right on Periakaruppan to be declared elected from the constituency.

In his petition, Periakaruppan alleged that a postal ballot intended for Assembly Constituency No. 185 Tiruppattur in Sivagangai district was mistakenly sent to Constituency No. 50 Tiruppattur in Tirupattur district and was rejected instead of being forwarded to the correct Returning Officer.

He also alleged discrepancies in the counting records, claiming there was an 18-vote variation between the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) figures reflected in the consolidated round-wise counting abstract and the data uploaded on the Election Commission of India website.

The High Court directed authorities to preserve and secure all records connected to the counting process conducted on May 4, 2026. These include consolidated counting abstracts, statutory forms, round-wise counting sheets, EVM vote account records, postal ballot documents, rejected postal ballot covers and papers, declarations, envelopes and all records relating to re-verification of rejected postal ballots.

The Bench further ordered that if any postal ballot relating to Constituency No. 185 Tiruppattur had been received or retained at Constituency No. 50 Tiruppattur, it must be separately identified, sealed and preserved without any tampering or opening.

The Court also directed preservation of videographic footage relating to counting, scrutiny, rejection and re-verification of postal ballots in original electronic form along with backup copies. Authorities were restrained from destroying, altering, transferring or parting with custody of the election material except in accordance with law and subject to further orders of the Court.

However, the Bench clarified that its order should not be interpreted as directing recounting, reopening of ballot papers, revalidation of rejected postal ballots or interference with the election result already declared. It also kept open all rights and remedies available to the parties under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India submitted that the Commission was only the statutory authority responsible for maintaining election records and conducting the electoral process, and not the adjudicatory body to determine the rightful winner of the election. The Commission further argued that once the election result was declared, the Returning Officer became functus officio, and any adjudication regarding disputed postal ballots would require reopening sealed records through a trial-like evidentiary exercise.

Periakaruppan had also sought access to videographic footage related to the mandatory re-verification process for rejected postal ballots and filed an interim application seeking to restrain Sethupathi from participating in legislative proceedings pending adjudication of the petition. The plea did not seek a stay on Sethupathi taking oath as MLA but only sought restrictions on his participation in Assembly proceedings.