India will turn autocratic if election petitions aren't decided on time: Madras HC flags 6-year delay by SC in 2016 case

Election petitions have to be decided by courts on time and failure to do so will defeat electoral democracy and could result in autocracy, the Madras High Court recently held.

The Madras High Court flagged the delay by the Supreme Court in deciding an appeal arising from the 2016 Radhapuram Assembly election dispute, observing that the case has become a “grave mockery of justice”. [Appavu Vs Inbadurai].

Justice G Jayachandran made the observations while flagging the delay by the Supreme Court in deciding an appeal arising from the 2016 Radhapuram Assembly election dispute.

The High Court opined that the case has become a “grave mockery of justice” and non-adherence to the statutory mandate under Section 86 of the Representation of People Act for speedy disposal of election petitions would undermine democracy and the true spirit of adult franchise.

“Non-adherence to the mandate contained in Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, will undermine democracy and the true spirit of adult franchise. If courts continue to ignore their own observations made in Mohd.Akbar case, I fear that this country may also go in the way of other autocratic countries which gained Independence around 75 years ago, along with us,” the High Court underscored.

Hence, it allowed an election petition filed by DMK leader M Appavu, who had challenged the election of AIADMK candidate IS Inbadurai from the Radhapuram Assembly constituency in Tamil Nadu in 2016.

"The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after keeping the matter pending for about six years, thought fit that the question has to be kept open in view of the lapse of time and the term of office having expired and no useful purpose would be served in adjudicating upon the said question in the Civil Appeal. With great respect, the Hon’ble Apex Court should have answered this question since this Court has already as Court of first instance/trial Court given a finding in respect of the above question," the High Court said.

The High Court proceeded to declare Inbadurai’s election void and held that Appavu was the duly elected member from Radhapuram for the 2016-2021 term.

“The term ‘unfortunate’ may not be an adequate expression to describe the present case since in view of this Court, a grave mockery of justice, under the guise of dispensing justice been committed to the people of India, particularly the voters of No.228 Radhapuram Assembly Constituency, Tirunelveli District, who were forced to bear a person as their Assembly representative though he is not duly elected.”

The dispute arose after Appavu lost the 2016 Assembly election by 49 votes. He contended that valid postal ballots cast in his favour were wrongly rejected and that there were irregularities in the counting of votes recorded in Electronic Voting Machines during the 19th, 20th and 21st rounds.

In October 2019, the High Court ordered re-verification of all postal ballots and recounting of the EVM votes in the three rounds. It also held that the rejection of 203 postal ballots, on the ground that they were attested by middle school headmasters, was improper.

The High Court found that middle school headmasters are to be considered 'gazetted officers' for the purpose of attesting postal ballot declarations.

Inbadurai challenged the order before the Supreme Court. On October 4, 2019, the Supreme Court permitted the counting process to proceed but stayed the declaration of the results.

The matter remained pending before the Supreme Court for years. The High Court noted that the appeal was finally disposed of only on May 21, 2026, after the 2016-2021 Assembly term had ended and after two subsequent elections had taken place.

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by keeping open the legal question on whether headmasters were gazetted officers.

The Supreme Court also observed that no useful purpose would be served in deciding the issue after the lapse of time and expiry of the term.

Justice Jayachandran expressed disagreement with that approach.

The High Court said it could not abdicate its constitutional responsibility merely because of the passage of time.

“This Court has a Constitutional duty and has taken a solemn oath to protect and preserve the Constitution. Therefore, not inclined to abdicate its responsibility for whatever reason,” the High Court opined.

It noted that the recount showed that of the 203 postal votes earlier rejected as invalid, Appavu had secured 153 votes, while Inbadurai had secured only one vote. Forty-four votes were rejected as invalid.

On this basis, the High Court concluded that Appavu had won the 2016 Radhapuram election by a margin of 103 votes.

However, it clarified that the improper declaration of Inbadurai as elected was not attributable to his conduct. Therefore, he would not face any disqualification.

However, the Court held that Inbadurai would not be entitled to claim pensionary benefits as MLA for the 2016-2021 term.

The Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly was directed to substitute Appavu’s name in official records as the representative of Radhapuram constituency for the 2016-2021 term.

The election petition was accordingly allowed.

Appavu was represented by advocate A E Ravichandran.

Inbadurai was represented by advocate NC Ashok Kumar.

[Read Judgment]