Madras High Court restrains TVK candidate who won by 1 vote from floor test

Justices L Victoria Gowri and N Senthilkumar

The court remarked that if Sethupathi participates in such proceedings and his vote becomes decisive, the consequence may travel far beyond the constituency and affect the constitutional governance of the state. It however clarified that the order would not deem his election as void.

“We are not, at this stage, declaring the election of the sixth respondent void. Nor is this Court seating the petitioner in his place. We are only considering whether, pending prima facie scrutiny of serious electoral anomalies in a one-vote result, the returned candidate should be permitted to participate in a proceeding where his vote may alter the balance of power in the House,” the court observed.

The petitioner had also alleged that one postal ballot allegedly belonging to Tiruppattur Assembly constituency was rejected in another constituency instead of being transmitted to the competent returning officer.

“In an election decided by one vote, every vote is not merely relevant; it is potentially determinative. The petitioner’s grievance regarding the postal ballot is not a mere request for recount. It is a complaint that a vote allegedly belonging to one constituency was dealt with by an authority of another constituency,” the court noted.

It further added that if this allegation is ultimately found to be correct, the matter would not merely involve an error of counting, but a jurisdictional defect in the handling of a valid electoral record.

On the submission by the respondents that the mistaken transfer of a postal ballot from one constituency to another is an unforeseen and improbable occurrence, the court noted that such aspects cannot be lightly brushed aside.

The order observed that “democracy breathes through the ballot”.

“The Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters touching elections, is required to walk with constitutional caution. It cannot, under the guise of interim protection, trench upon the forbidden field reserved for an election petition. At the same time, where a narrow and exceptional plea is made for preservation of vital electoral material, so that the truth is not lost by efflux of time, constitutional courts are not rendered helpless spectators,” it added.

According to the Madras High Court, the case disclosed a “peculiar constitutional anomaly” where a postal ballot admittedly in one constituency was allegedly diverted to another constituency bearing a similar nomenclature and came to be rejected there, not on the ground of invalidity of vote, impersonation, defective marking or statutory disqualification, but solely because it was found in a different constituency.

Plea

The petitioner Periakaruppan, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, sought directions to the authorities to secure the postal votes belonging to No 185 Tiruppattur Assembly constituency which he argued was wrongly sent to No 50, Tiruppattur Assembly constituency and account the same to No185, Tiruppattur Assembly constituency, for the recently held assembly elections.

“In an election decided by thousands of votes, such matters may stand on a different plane. But in an election decided by one vote, every vote is not merely relevant; it is potentially determinative. The petitioner’s grievance regarding the postal ballot is not a mere request for a recount. It is a complaint that a vote allegedly belonging to one constituency was dealt with by an authority of another constituency. If this allegation is ultimately found to be correct, the matter would not merely involve an error of counting but a jurisdictional defect in the handling of a valid electoral record,” the Madras High Court held.

Sethupathi was represented by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi.