‘Atrocious’: SC stays HC’s order restraining TVK MLA from taking part in TN assembly
A bench of justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi suspended the operation of the high court’s interim order and stayed further proceedings before the high court, observing that the writ petition itself ought not to have been entertained in view of the constitutional scheme governing election disputes.
The Supreme Court’s intervention came even as the floor test proceedings were underway in the Assembly. By the time the apex court passed its order and directed its immediate upload on the Supreme Court website, Vijay had already won the trust vote. The final tally stood at 144 votes in favour of the government, 22 against, while five members abstained. The DMK walked out of the Assembly ahead of the confidence motion, with leader of opposition and DMK MLA Udhyanidhi Stalin announcing that the party would boycott the proceedings.
The controversy arose from a Madras High Court order passed on Tuesday restraining Sethupathi from participating in the Assembly over a dispute concerning a postal ballot in the Tiruppattur constituency, where the TVK candidate defeated DMK’s KR Periyakaruppan by a single vote.
Appearing for Sethupathi, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi assailed the HC order as “blatantly illegal” and submitted before the apex court that the matter required strong judicial correction. “This is one case where strictures are required,” Singhvi argued.
Questioning the maintainability of the proceedings before the high court, the Supreme Court asked senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Periyakaruppan: “How did you file a writ petition under Article 226?”
The bench also sought clarity from the Election Commission of India (ECI), asking: “Who are you supporting?”
Singhvi pointed out that even ECI had opposed the maintainability of the writ petition before the high court and argued that the only remedy available after declaration of election results was an election petition under the Representation of the People Act.
“This is atrocious to say the least…the high court says that the remedy is an election petition but still entertained an Article 226 petition? This will take away the remedy of an election tribunal,” the bench observed during the hearing.
Defending the high court proceedings, Rohatgi submitted that the dispute arose because two constituencies shared the name Tiruppattur — one in Sivagangai district and another in Tirupattur district, leading to an alleged mix-up involving a postal ballot.
“This is constituency number 185. There is another constituency with the same name. I lost by one vote and it later transpired that a postal ballot meant for my constituency reached the other constituency. Had it come to the correct postal address, there would have been a tie,” Rohatgi argued.
He further contended that the case fell outside the ordinary framework of an election petition because the grievance related to an alleged administrative lapse by election authorities. “If votes have gone elsewhere, there is no other provision and I do not have the remedy to move an election petition,” he submitted.
The Supreme Court, however, was not persuaded at this stage and stayed both the operation of the impugned order and further proceedings before the high court.
“The operation of the impugned order is stayed. Further proceedings before the high court shall remain stayed,” directed the bench, while issuing notice and granting two weeks for filing of counter affidavits.
Significantly, Singhvi also urged the court to ensure immediate release of the order since the confidence motion was already in progress inside the Assembly. Accepting the request, the bench directed that the order be uploaded forthwith on the Supreme Court website, observing that it was a matter of “prestige”.
The litigation traces back to Periyakaruppan’s plea before the Madras High Court alleging that election officials mishandled one postal ballot intended for the Tiruppattur constituency in Sivagangai district and mistakenly sent it to the identically named Tiruppattur constituency in Tirupattur district, where it was allegedly rejected instead of being redirected for counting.
On Tuesday, the high court had held that the matter involved an “administrative failure” by election authorities and justified limited judicial intervention under Article 226 to preserve electoral records and evidence. It had also observed that participation by Sethupathi in the floor test could have consequences “far beyond the constituency and affect the constitutional governance of the State.”
