No jurisdiction to act on DMK minister’s one-vote loss to TVK: ECI to Madras HC

ECI told the bench that KR Periyakaruppan raised no objections during counting and argued that the ECI ceased to have any role after the declaration of results

The Election Commission of India (ECI) told the Madras High Court on Monday that the poll body had no jurisdiction to act on Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader KR Periyakaruppan’s complaint over a disputed postal ballot after the declaration of results in the Tiruppattur assembly constituency election.

The Court recorded the submissions and reserved its verdict on the plea. (MyNeta website)

ECI told a bench of Justices L Victoria Gowri and N Senthil Kumar that Periyakaruppan raised no objections during counting and argued that the ECI ceased to have any role after the declaration of results.

Senior counsel G Rajagopalan, who appeared for ECI, also told the Court that Periyakaruppan had produced no evidence to substantiate the allegation that election officials had sent a postal ballot to the wrong Tiruppattur constituency.

He argued that Periyakaruppan’s claim rested solely on the version of an election agent and that the DMK candidate had not produced any evidence to support his allegation.

ECI also disputed the suggestion that the error in postal ballots had in fact occurred at all. Calling it “a matter of evidence,” Rajagopalan said the court could not proceed merely on allegations without material on record establishing how the ballot allegedly went to the wrong constituency.

Rajagopalan further argued that Periyakaruppan had not placed any material on record to establish that a postal ballot intended for the Tiruppattur constituency in Sivagangai district had mistakenly gone to another Tiruppattur constituency in Tirupattur district.

“No material has been placed on record to say how the postal ballot went to the wrong constituency of the same name. It is based on the imagination of one election agent. Our hands are tied,” he said.

Senior counsel NR Elango, who appeared for Periyakaruppan, responded that the Returning Officer had informed them about the issue.

The Court recorded the submissions and reserved its verdict on the plea.

The Court had also conducted a special urgent hearing on Sunday, May 10, on Periyakaruppan’s plea challenging the result in the Tiruppattur assembly constituency, where he lost to TVK candidate R Seenivasa Sethupathi by a single vote in the April 23 Tamil Nadu assembly election. Results were declared on May 4.

Periyakaruppan claimed that election officials wrongly sent one postal ballot to another Tiruppattur constituency and rejected it there instead of forwarding it to the correct constituency. He argued that the disputed vote could alter the result. If counted in his favour, the election would end in a tie.

On Sunday, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Elango, appearing for Periyakaruppan, had argued that the case involved a unique situation concerning a single postal ballot out of the 2,275 postal votes cast.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Sethupathi, had opposed the plea and argued that Periyakaruppan should pursue an election petition instead.