E-Paper
Madras HC seeks ECI reply on DMK minister’s one-vote loss to TVK
The ECI argued that since the results had already been declared, only an “election petition” could resolve the dispute
Madras High Court in a special sitting on Sunday, directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to file an affidavit explaining why it had not responded to representations filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader KR Periyakaruppan over a disputed postal ballot in Tamil Nadu’s Tiruppattur assembly constituency in Sivagangai district.
Periyakaruppan lost the seat to Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate R Seenivasa Sethupathi by a single vote in the 2026 assembly elections.
Sethupathy won by securing 83,375 votes, while Periyakaruppan lost by 83,374 votes, a margin of just one vote.
Periyakaruppan challenged the results announced on May 4.
In his writ petition filed before the court, Periyakaruppan sought a direction to secure and account for a postal ballot that he claimed election officials wrongly sent to another Tiruppattur constituency in Tirupattur district and thus was rejected there.
He told the court that he had addressed representations to the election officers since the results but was yet to hear from them.
A bench of Justices L Victoria Gowri and N Senthilkumar questioned the ECI over its silence on the complaint.
“He has sent mails. How can ECI say when the primary issue is on the ballot, you have become functus officio (completed its duties)? It is your duty to respond. What is the answer to the issue raised by them? They are saying one postal ballot has gone to some other constituency, what is your answer?” the court said.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and NR Elango, who appeared for Periyakaruppan, told the court that the issue at hand was unique and peculiar since it concerned only one postal vote out of 2,275 postal ballots cast.
Rohatgi also compared it to “a postman’s mistake.” He argued that officials wrongly rejected a postal ballot sent to the wrong Tiruppattur constituency instead of forwarding it to the correct one.
Rohatgi said the disputed ballot could alter the election outcome. “If it’s a valid vote, then it’s a tie. There will have to be a draw of lots,” he said.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Sethupathi, opposed the writ petition and argued that Periyakaruppan must pursue an election petition instead.
“A crown cannot become a swan. Why on earth can he not file an election petition?” Singhvi said.
The ECI argued that since the results had already been declared, only an “election petition” could resolve the dispute.
Periyakaruppan also sought an interim order restraining Sethupathi from participating in legislative proceedings, including the upcoming trust vote in the assembly.
The court however, refrained from passing any orders and will continue hearing the matter on May 11.
