Madras High Court dismisses petition against TVK MLA's one-vote Tirupattur win

The Madras High Court on Monday rejected an election petition challenging the victory of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) legislator R. Seenivasa Sethupathy from the Tirupattur constituency in Sivaganga district, where he prevailed by a single vote in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly polls.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan allowed an application moved by the TVK MLA seeking the dismissal of the petition filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) candidate and former Minister K.R. Periakaruppan.

Mr. Sethupathy was declared elected with 83,375 votes against 83,374 for Mr. Periakaruppan. The DMK candidate had contended that he lost primarily because Tamil Nadu has two Legislative Assembly constituencies sharing the name Tirupattur, and that a postal vote meant for the Tirupattur seat in Sivaganga district had been sent instead to the Tirupattur constituency in Tirupattur district and never returned.

Senior counsel V. Raghavachari, assisted by advocates Dixita Gohil and Pranjal Agarwal, argued that the petitioner had presented a highly implausible scenario in which a postal vote could be misdirected solely because two constituencies share a name.

He submitted that the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, deploy multiple independent identifiers that make it very difficult to lose track of a postal ballot's intended destination. The Tirupattur constituency in Tirupattur district is numbered 50, while the Tirupattur constituency in Sivaganga district is numbered 185, and the constituency number, rather than the name, is the key identifier, he said.

The counsel further pointed out that any elector wishing to vote by post must apply to the Returning Officer concerned using Form 12, so the constituency is determined well before a postal ballot is issued. Postal ballots also carry the full address of the relevant Returning Officer pre-printed, and the covers clearly state the constituency name, number, district and the Returning Officer's full address, he added.

Mr. Raghavachari said this meant a postal ballot is not an anonymous page that could ordinarily be treated as belonging to whichever constituency happens to receive it by accident or coincidence, and noted that election officials are responsible for transporting the covers.

He also argued that the petitioner had produced no material apart from an affidavit by S. Rajendran, a counting agent of Tirupattur district DMK candidate A. Nallathambi, who claimed to have come across a postal vote belonging to constituency number 185 at constituency number 50. The senior counsel questioned the basis for the claim that exactly one postal vote had gone astray between similarly named constituencies, and asked how Mr. Periakaruppan could know the vote was cast in his favour when postal votes are safeguarded under a nested cover system.