English
English
English
Supreme Court
New Delhi: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court stayed a Madras High Court order that had barred TVK MLA R. Srinivasa Sethupathi from participating in the Legislative Assembly's floor test. Sethupathi had defeated DMK leader K.R. Periyakaruppan by a margin of just one vote in the Tiruppattur constituency of Sivaganga district.
What Did the Supreme Court Say?
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi expressed displeasure over the High Court's ruling. The bench remarked that it was surprising for the High Court to directly entertain and hear a petition regarding election-related matters. The Supreme Court has also, for the time being, stayed the entire proceedings currently underway in the High Court regarding this matter.
The Court has granted DMK leader Periyakaruppan and others two weeks to file their responses. Sethupathi had challenged the High Court's interim order, which had prohibited him from casting a vote in any form of power test or confidence motion. Meanwhile, the TVK government led by C. Joseph Vijay successfully proved its majority in the Legislative Assembly on Wednesday.
What is the Case?
In this case, TVK MLA R. Srinivasa Sethupathi had challenged an interim order issued by the Madras High Court, which had barred him from participating in any proceedings or floor tests within the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi heard the matter. On Tuesday, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi had appealed to the Chief Justice for an urgent hearing of the case. Following this appeal, the apex court agreed to hear the matter.
What Had the High Court Said?
A vacation bench of the Madras High Court had issued this order against Sethupathi. The Court stated that, pending further orders, Sethupathi cannot participate in a confidence vote, a no-confidence motion, or any other voting process where the numerical strength of the House is put to the test. This order was issued in response to a petition filed by former Minister and DMK leader K.R. Periyakaruppan. Periyakaruppan had lost to Sethupathi in this election by a margin of just one vote.
A Victory Secured by a Single Vote
According to the Election Commission's results, Sethupathi secured 83,365 votes, while Periyakaruppan received 83,364 votes. Subsequently, Periyakaruppan alleged serious irregularities in the vote-counting process. He claims that a postal ballot intended for the Tiruppattur constituency in the Sivaganga district was mistakenly sent to the Tiruppattur constituency located near Vellore. Instead of being returned to its rightful destination, it was rejected there.
The High Court characterized this as a peculiar constitutional situation. The Court observed that this is not merely a standard dispute regarding vote counting, but rather a case of administrative failure. According to the Court, in an election decided by a margin of just one vote, every single vote holds immense significance. Furthermore, a discrepancy of 18 votes regarding Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) was also revealed between two official government records. The High Court acknowledged that, given such a slender margin of victory, these issues cannot be overlooked.
Election Commission Opposes the Petition
The High Court has directed election officials to preserve all records, postal ballots, and video footage related to the vote counting. However, the Court also clarified that it has not set aside Sethupathi's election. On the other hand, the Election Commission opposed the petition. The Commission argued that once election results have been declared, any dispute can be resolved solely through an election petition filed under the 'Representation of the People Act, 1951'.
