In a special Sunday hearing, the Madras High Court today directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to explain in an affidavit why it failed to respond to a representation by DMK leader and losing candidate KR Periakaruppan regarding a misdirected postal ballot that allegedly can change the result of the Tiruppattur Assembly constituency election, where the DMK candidate lost to TVK by a single vote.
The bench of Justices Victoria Gowri and N Senthilkumar was hearing a writ petition filed by Periakaruppan, who contested from the No. 185 Tiruppattur constituency in Sivagangai district during the April 23, 2026 elections to the 17th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. He lost to Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate R Seenivasa Sethupathi by exactly one vote after counting on May 4, 2026. As per the results declared by ECI, Sethupathi got 83375 votes, while Periakaruppan got 83374 votes.
At the heart of the dispute is a postal ballot meant for Periakaruppan’s constituency that was erroneously sent to the similarly named No. 50 Tiruppattur constituency in Tirupattur district. The Returning Officer there rejected it instead of forwarding it to the correct constituency. Periakaruppan argued that this ballot, had it been properly handled and sent to his constituency, could have turned the one-vote defeat into a tie, triggering a draw of lots under election rules. He also pointed to an alleged 18-vote discrepancy between EVM figures in the consolidated round-wise abstract and those published on the ECI website.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioner, described the case as “unique and peculiar.” He told the court: “When counting in the other constituency was going on, the election officer instead of sending it to the correct constituency, rejected the ballot. He should have sent it to correct address… If a letter is addressed to a wrong house, it should be brought back to the correct house.” Rohatgi and Senior Advocate NR Elango emphasised that representations, including emails sent on May 5, received no response from election authorities.
The petition seeks directions to secure and account for the disputed postal vote, videograph the reverification of rejected postal ballots (out of 2,275 postal votes, 1,969 were declared valid and 338 rejected), and an interim injunction restraining Sethupathi from taking oath as MLA until the matter is resolved.
ECI counsel Advocate Tarun Rao Kallakuru argued that once results were declared, the Returning Officer became functus officio (having discharged his duty) and could not revisit the matter. He maintained that the ECI is merely a record-keeper and that sealed ballots cannot be reopened without proper election petition process.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the winning candidate, contended that the dispute is a “bilateral election dispute” that must be resolved through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, which can be filed within 45 days. “A crown cannot become a swan. Why on earth can he not file an election petition?” Singhvi asked, adding that there was no urgency warranting a Sunday hearing or interim relief that would interfere with the winner’s electoral rights.
Senior Advocate V Raghavchari, also representing the winner, added that the interim prayers exceeded the scope of the writ petition and that no mandamus could lie against the ECI in these circumstances.
The court, however, questioned the ECI over its silence. Justice Gowri observed: “He has sent mails. How can ECI say when the primary issue is on the ballot, you have become functus officio? It is your duty to respond. What is the answer to the issue raised by them? They are saying one postal ballot has gone to some other constituency, what is your answer?” The bench directed the ECI to file an affidavit clarifying its stand on the non-response to Periakaruppan’s representation.
TVK’s Vijay has become the CM with a razor-thin majority. If the court accepts the petition and orders a reconsideration of the misdirected postal ballot, it can reduce the number of the ruling alliance by 1 MLA, if the DMK candidate is declared the winner on the basis of that ballot and a subsequent draw of lots.
The matter highlights the confusion caused by two assembly constituencies sharing the name “Tiruppattur” in different districts, a situation the petitioner’s counsel said election laws do not adequately address. The court has not yet scheduled the next hearing.
