In a major relief for the Tamil Nadu-based TVK party, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday stayed a controversial order passed by the Madras High Court. The High Court had earlier restrained TVK MLA Sreenivasa Sethupathi from participating and voting in the high-stakes Tamil Nadu Assembly floor test.
Describing the High Court’s intervention as "atrocious," a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi questioned how a writ petition could be entertained to stall an elected representative from performing his duties, especially when the law provides a specific remedy through an "Election Petition."
The legal battle began following a razor-thin victory in the assembly elections. Sreenivasa Sethupathi (TVK) defeated DMK veteran KR Periakaruppan by a margin of just one vote.
Periakaruppan approached the Madras High Court through a writ petition, claiming that one postal ballot cast in his favor was mistakenly delivered to the wrong constituency (Constituency No. 50 instead of No. 185). He argued that if this vote had been counted, the result would have been a tie.
The Madras High Court, in an urgent hearing, passed an interim order barring Sethupathi from voting in the floor test. The High Court reasoned that if Sethupathi was allowed to vote while his election was being disputed, it could have an irreversible impact on the stability of the government.
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the TVK MLA, argued that the High Court’s order was legally "erroneous." He expressed shock that a writ petition filed on a Saturday evening was heard urgently on a Sunday to stop an MLA from voting.
The Supreme Court bench expressed strong displeasure with the High Court’s approach. Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked, "This is atrocious. The High Court itself says the remedy is an election petition and yet it entertains a writ petition."
Under Indian election laws, once an election result is declared, it can generally only be challenged via an Election Petition under the Representation of the People Act, not through a standard writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the DMK candidate, argued that the facts were "extraordinary" and justified the High Court’s action. However, the Supreme Court remained unconvinced and stayed the High Court’s order immediately.
The stay allowed Sethupathi to participate in the legislative proceedings. During the hearing, it was noted that the DMK had staged a walk-out from the floor test, making the single vote less consequential to the final outcome, but the legal precedent remained vital.
By staying the High Court’s order and the proceedings of the writ petition, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the sanctity of the election process and the rights of elected members cannot be easily bypassed through urgent writ litigations.
Case Title: R Sreenivasa Sethupathi vs. KR Periakaruppan & Ors.