Supreme Court Stays High Court Order Barring TVK MLA From Floor Test Amid Election Dispute

The Supreme Court stayed the interim order of the Madras High Court that had restrained Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA Seenivasa Sethupathi from participating in the upcoming floor test of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.

During the proceedings, the Apex Court expressed strong reservations regarding the maintainability of the original writ petition under Article 226, characterizing the High Court's decision to interdict the electoral mandate—despite the availability of an election petition as a remedy—as "atrocious."

While Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the respondent, argued that the misdirection of a crucial postal ballot created an unprecedented "procedural vacuum" not covered under the Representation of the People Act, the Bench stayed all further proceedings before the High Court and restored the MLA's right to vote, granting the parties four weeks to complete the filing of their respective counter-affidavits and rejoinders.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi ordered "Heard Learned counsels for the petitioner and respondents...The Counsel for respondents shall have two weeks to file their counter, and the Petitioner will two weeks to file their rejoidner thereafter. In the meantime the order shall remain stayed, further proceedings before the Court also stayed."

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Sreenivasan, while Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Periakaruppan.

Rohatgi emphasized the gravity of the electoral anomaly, pointing out that he had lost the election by a margin of only one vote. He contended that a crucial postal ballot belonging to Constituency No. 185 was erroneously diverted to Constituency No. 50, and had this vote been correctly accounted for, the result would have culminated in a tie.

He further argued that the Election Commission of India (ECI) admitted in its counter-affidavit that no statutory provision existed to rectify such a misdirection under the current framework of the Representation of the People Act.

The Bench expressed strong reservations regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in light of the settled legal position on election disputes. Upon being informed that the High Court had acknowledged that an election petition was the appropriate remedy and yet proceeded to stay the MLA's participation in the House, the Court remarked that such an approach was "atrocious to say the least."

The Court questioned how a High Court could interdict the electoral mandate through an interim stay when the bar under Article 329(b) was clearly attracted.

To which Rohatgi replied, "If it doesn't lie then what remedies do I have?"

In view of the submissions made, the Supreme Court granted the respondent two weeks' time to file a counter-affidavit. By way of an interim order, the Court stayed the operation of the Madras High Court’s directions, thereby restoring the petitioner’s right to participate and vote in the impending floor test.

Furthermore, the Court stayed all further proceedings in the writ petition pending before the High Court.

TVK MLA Seenivasa Sethupathi has moved the Supreme Court challenging an interim order passed by the Madras High Court, which restrained him from participating in the floor test of the Tamil Nadu Assembly scheduled for the following day.

Yesterday, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi mentioned the matter before the Court, seeking an urgent listing on account of the imminent threat to the respondent’s legislative participation.

The controversy originated from the general elections to the 17th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, where Sethupathi was declared elected from the Tiruppattur constituency by a solitary vote, defeating the DMK candidate. The defeated candidate subsequently filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging grave irregularities in the counting process.

It was specifically contended that a valid postal ballot in favour of the petitioner was wrongly diverted to another constituency with a similar nomenclature and was subsequently rejected by the authorities there, rather than being restored to the correct Returning Officer.

The Madras High Court, while acknowledging the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) against interfering in election matters, observed that the case presented an "altogether exceptional and unprecedented factual footing." The Court noted that a procedural vacuum existed regarding the restoration of misdirected postal ballots, which the legislature had not specifically contemplated under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It further highlighted a discrepancy of 18 EVM votes between official records, which, in an election decided by a single vote, was deemed potentially determinative.

Finding that the purity of the electoral process was at stake, the High Court held that the balance of convenience required the preservation of the status quo to prevent irreversible constitutional consequences.

Consequently, the High Court passed an interim injunction restraining Sethupathi from voting or participating in any floor test or trust vote until further orders. The Court clarified that this did not amount to setting aside the election but was a limited measure to preserve electoral integrity. Furthermore, the Court directed the official respondents to secure and preserve all electoral records, including videographic footage and the disputed postal ballots, pending a final adjudication of the matter.

The High Court had ordered, "In view of the such discussion, there shall be an order of interim injunction restraining the sixth respondent/returned candidate from voting or otherwise taking part in any floor test, including, confidence motion, no-confidence motion, trust vote or any voting proceeding in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly where the numerical strength of the House is tested, until further orders of this Court...It is made clear that this interim order shall not be construed as setting aside the declaration of election of the sixth respondent, nor shall it be treated as conferring any right upon the petitioner to be declared elected."

The High Court had also said that if any postal ballot alleged to have been received in relation to No.185 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency was received, handled, retained or rejected at No.50 Tiruppattur Assembly Constituency, the same shall be identified, sealed, secured and preserved separately, without opening or tampering with the same.

Cause Title: R Seenivasa Sethupathi vs Kr. Periakaruppan [SLP(C) No. 17415/2026]