BENGALURU: The Madras High Court, in a special session on Sunday, ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to file an affidavit explaining why it did not respond to complaints filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader K. R. Periyakaruppan, over the disputed postal poll in Tirupattur Assembly constituency in the recently concluded Tamil Nadu elections.
Periyakaruppan lost his Sivagangai district seat to Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate R Seenivasa Sethupathi by one vote in the assembly elections held on April 23. He contested the results announced on May 4.
In his petition before the Supreme 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.
Periyakaruppan alleged that the disputed postal ballot was meant for his constituency in Tirupattur but was mistakenly sent to another constituency in Tirupattur and was rejected there. He also said that he sent representations to election officials after the results came out but has not heard from them yet.
A bench of Justices L Victoria Gowri and N Senthilkumar questioned ECI 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?” Bench said.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and NR Elango, who appeared for Periyakarupappan, told the court that the case was unique and strange as it concerned only one postal vote out of a total 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. He added that the disputed ballot could change the outcome of the election. He said: “If the vote is correct, it means a tie. There must be a draw.”
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Sethupathi, opposed the petition and said Periyakarupappan should file an election petition instead.
“The crown can’t become a swan. Why on earth can’t it file an election petition?” Singhvi argued.
The EU Presidential Elections Corporation 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 order and postponed the case for another hearing on Monday.
