Madras High Court Issues Interim Order on Tamil Nadu Assembly Election Dispute
The Madras High Court has intervened in the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections by issuing an interim order that bars S. Setupati, a winning candidate, from participating in an upcoming confidence vote. This decision stems from a dispute regarding postal ballots, where another candidate, K.R. Periyakaruppan, claims his ballot was mishandled. The court's ruling highlights the complexities surrounding electoral processes and the implications of ballot errors. As the situation unfolds, the court's clarification on the matter raises questions about the integrity of the election results and the role of the Election Commission.
May 12, 2026, 13:26 IST
Interim Order Prevents Candidate from Voting
The Madras High Court issued an interim order on Tuesday, preventing S. Setupati, the candidate from the Tamilaga Vetttri Kazhagam (TVK) who won the Tiruppattur constituency in the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections, from participating in the upcoming confidence vote scheduled for May 13. The bench, comprising Justice L. Victoria Gowri and Justice N. Senthil Kumar, issued this order in light of the postal ballot controversy concerning the Tiruppattur constituency.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) informed the court on Monday that it lacked jurisdiction to address the disputed postal ballot complaint raised by DMK leader K.R. Periyakaruppan after the election results were announced.
Background of the Dispute
Periyakaruppan had filed a petition in the High Court last week, claiming that election officials mistakenly sent his postal ballot to a different constituency instead of Shivaganga, leading to its rejection. He lost the election by a narrow margin of just one vote, receiving 83,374 votes. He argued that had his ballot been counted, the election results would have ended in a tie.
Senior advocate G. Rajagopalan, representing the Election Commission, opposed the petition, stating that Periyakaruppan failed to provide any evidence to support his claims. He further argued that the role of the Election Commission concluded once the results were declared and that Periyakaruppan's assertions were solely based on the statement of an election representative.
Court's Ruling
The Election Commission also refuted any suggestions of errors in the postal ballots, asserting that it was a matter of evidence. Nevertheless, the court noted that there appeared to be a strong prima facie case for issuing interim directions to Setupati. However, the court clarified that the order should not be interpreted as a directive for a recount of votes for the concerned seat.