SC to Hear MLA’s Plea Against Ban on Voting in Tamil Nadu Floor Test

As per details available on the official website of the apex court, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Sethupathi was registered on Tuesday and is listed before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi for hearing on May 13.

The plea was mentioned for urgent hearing before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi earlier on Tuesday, following which the apex court agreed to list the matter for hearing on Wednesday.

Sethupathi has moved the top court challenging the interim order passed by a vacation Bench of the Madras High Court restraining him from "voting or otherwise taking part in any floor test, including confidence motion, no-confidence motion, trust vote or any voting proceeding in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly where the numerical strength of the House is tested, until further orders".

A bench of Justices L. Victoria Gowri and N. Senthilkumar had passed the interim direction while hearing a writ petition filed by former Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader K.R. Periakaruppan, who lost the Tiruppattur Assembly seat in Sivaganga district by a margin of just one vote.

According to the official results declared by the Election Commission of India (ECI), Sethupathi secured 83,365 votes, while Periakaruppan polled 83,364 votes.

Periakaruppan had alleged serious irregularities in the counting process and claimed that a postal ballot meant for Tiruppattur Assembly constituency No.185 in Sivaganga district was mistakenly sent to Tiruppattur Assembly constituency No.50 in Tiruppattur district near Vellore and was rejected there instead of being transmitted back to the correct constituency.

In its order, the Madras High Court observed that the case disclosed a "peculiar constitutional anomaly where a postal ballot admittedly relatable to a live and concluded election in one constituency was allegedly diverted to another constituency bearing a similar nomenclature and came to be rejected there".

The order said the controversy was not a routine election dispute involving recounting or rejection of votes simpliciter, but arose from "an antecedent administrative failure in preserving the integrity of the electoral chain itself".

It further observed that in an election decided by a margin of one vote, "every vote is not merely relevant; it is potentially determinative".

Referring to the alleged discrepancy of 18 EVM votes between two official sources and the disputed postal ballot, the Madras High Court held that the issues could not be brushed aside at the threshold, particularly in view of the razor-thin margin of victory.

It had also directed election authorities to preserve all records connected with the counting process, including postal ballot records, rejected postal ballot covers, EVM vote account records, videographic footage of counting and all related materials.

At the same time, the Madras High Court clarified that its interim order should not be construed as setting aside Sethupathi's election or conferring any right upon the petitioner to be declared elected.

During the hearing before the High Court, the Election Commission of India (ECI) had opposed the writ petition and contended that once election results are declared, any dispute can only be adjudicated through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Senior counsel G. Rajagopalan, appearing for the ECI, had argued that the Returning Officer's powers cease after declaration of results and that "the moment results are declared, our hands are tied". However, the High Court held that the present case stood on an "exceptional and unprecedented factual footing" involving preservation of electoral integrity and constitutional justice.

- IANS