Madras High Court rejects DMK leader's election petition against TVK MLA's one-vote victory

The Madras High Court has upheld Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA R Seenivasa Sethupathi’s one-vote victory from the Tiruppattur Assembly constituency by rejecting an election petition filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader KR Periyakaruppan challenging the result.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan allowed an application filed by Sethupathi seeking rejection of Periyakaruppan’s election petition at the threshold.

Sethupathi had sought rejection of the petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that it did not disclose a cause of action and failed to contain the material facts required under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court had reserved its order on the application on September 17.

Sethupathi had defeated Periyakaruppan by a margin of just one vote in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. The election petition was subsequently filed by Periyakaruppan to challenge the result.

At the heart of Periyakaruppan’s challenge was a postal ballot allegedly meant for the Tiruppattur constituency in Sivagangai district, but mistakenly sent to another assembly constituency with the same name. Periyakaruppan claimed that instead of forwarding the ballot to the correct constituency, the returning officer who received it rejected it. He contended that the ballot was cast in his favour and could, therefore, have altered the outcome of an election decided by a single vote.

The DMK leader had also raised allegations concerning the counting and re-verification of postal ballots. According to his case, 2,276 postal ballots were polled but only 2,275 were counted, of which 306 were rejected and 1,969 treated as valid.

He further alleged an 18-vote discrepancy between the round-wise electronic voting machine (EVM) figures and the figures reflected in Form 20 and Election Commission records. Periyakaruppan maintained that these issues raised disputed questions of fact which required a trial and could not be shut out at the stage of considering an application for rejection of the election petition.

Sethupathi, however, argued that even if the allegations in the election petition were accepted at face value, they did not contain the material facts necessary to establish that the alleged irregularities had materially affected the election result.

He also contended that the allegations relating to postal ballots, discrepancies in counting and re-verification did not disclose a sustainable cause of action under the Representation of the People Act.

The election petition followed an earlier round of litigation initiated by Periyakaruppan through a writ petition soon after the election. In that case, the Madras High Court had on May 12 restrained Sethupathi from participating in any floor test or other legislative proceeding involving the numerical strength of the House.

The Supreme Court stayed the direction the following day, questioning the High Court's decision to entertain an Article 226 writ petition concerning an election dispute when the statutory remedy was an election petition.

Periyakaruppan later withdrew the writ petition after filing the present election petition.

Sethupathi was represented by Senior Advocate Raghavachari with Advocates Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, Yash S Vijay, T Mahendhran from Gohil Agarwal Law Chambers.