Madras High Court Halts TVK MLA's Participation in Floor Test Over Disputed Vote

The Madras High Court has restrained TVK MLA Seenivasa Sethupathi, who won the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections from Tiruppattur constituency by a single vote, from participating in any floor test. The court observed that judicial intervention is warranted when a disputed vote could determine the fate of the government. The vacation bench of Justice Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar passed interim orders on a plea filed by DMK candidate Periakaruppan, who alleged that a postal vote in his favor was wrongly sent to a different constituency with the same name and was ultimately rejected.

The court stated that the principle that "election disputes must await an election petition" cannot silence constitutional courts when the issue involves the immediate use of a disputed electoral mandate to decide the fate of the government. The court noted that Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam party received the highest number of votes (108) but fell short of the two-thirds majority mark of 118 votes. The party formed the government with support from Congress, Indian Muslim League, CPI, CPIM, and VCK. A floor test is scheduled for May 13th.

The court emphasized that a floor test is not an ordinary legislative sitting but determines the survival or fall of a government. If Sethupathi's vote becomes decisive, the consequences may affect the constitutional governance of the State. The court opined that the balance of convenience lay in preserving constitutional neutrality, as no harm would be caused to Sethupathi if prevented from participating, but permitting him could make the purity of the election process incapable of meaningful correction.

Regarding procedural safeguards, the Election Commission and the winning candidate argued that a writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable. The court, however, noted the exceptional and unprecedented factual footing of the case, not contemplated under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act. The court found fault with the returning officer for mechanically rejecting the postal vote instead of taking corrective steps to restore and transmit it to the competent officer, emphasizing that election officers are constitutional functionaries obligated to ensure each vote reaches its lawful destination.