The Madras High Court, in a special session on Sunday, directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to file an affidavit explaining why it did not respond to representations made by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader KR Periyakarupappan over the disputed postal polls in Tamil Nadu’s Tirupattur Assembly constituency in Sivagangai district.
Periyakaruppan lost the seat to Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate R Seenivasa Sethupathi by one vote in the 2026 assembly elections.
Sethupathi won by getting 83,375 votes, while Periyakaruppan lost by 83,374 votes, by just one vote.
Periyakaruppan appealed the results announced on 4 May.
In his petition before the court, Periyakaruppan sought a direction to secure and count the postal ballot, which he claimed was wrongly sent by election officials to another constituency at Tirupattur in Tirupattur district and was consequently rejected there.
He told the court that he had made representations to election officials since the results came out but had not yet heard from them.
Read also:Vijay finally crossed the majority mark as VCK, CPI(M) and CPI returned to TVK, paving the way for formation of Tamil Nadu government
A bench of Justices L Victoria Gauri and N Senthilkumar questioned the Election Commission of India over its silence on the complaint.
“He sent mailers. How can the IEC say when the main issue is on the ballot, it has become founce officio (completed its duties)? It is your duty to respond. What is the response to the issue you raised? They are saying that one postal ballot went to another constituency, what is your answer?” The court said.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and NR Elango, who appeared for Periyakarupappan, told the court that the case at hand was unique and strange as it concerned only one postal vote out of 2,275 postal ballots.
Rohatgi also compared it to a “postman’s mistake”. He said officials wrongly rejected a postal ballot sent to the wrong Tirupattur constituency instead of sending it to the correct one.
Rohatgi said the disputed ballot could change the outcome of the election. “If the vote is correct, it will be a tie. A lottery must be held,” he said.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Sethupathi, opposed the writ petition and said Periyakarupappan should pursue an election petition instead.
“The crown can’t become a swan. Why on earth can’t it file an election petition?” Singhvi said.
The Election Commission of India said that since the results had already been announced, the dispute could only be resolved through an “election petition”.
Periyakaruppan also sought an interim order restraining Sethupathi from participating in legislative proceedings, including the upcoming vote of confidence in the Assembly.
However, the court refrained from issuing any orders and will continue hearing the matter on May 11.
