Bengaluru The Madras High Court, in a special sitting on Sunday, directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to file an affidavit explaining why it had not responded to representations filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader KR Periyakaruppan over a disputed postal ballot in the Tiruppattur assembly constituency in the recently concluded Tamil Nadu elections.
Periyakaruppan lost the seat in Sivagangai district to Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate R Seenivasa Sethupathi by a single vote in the April 23 assembly polls. He challenged the results that were announced on May 4.
In his writ petition filed before the high court, Periyakaruppan sought a direction to secure and account for a postal ballot that he claimed election officials wrongly sent to another Tiruppattur constituency in Tirupattur district.
Periyakaruppan alleged that the disputed postal ballot was intended for his Tiruppattur constituency but was mistakenly sent to another Tiruppattur constituency and was rejected there. He further said that he had addressed representations to the election officers following the results but was yet to hear from them.
A bench of justices L Victoria Gowri and N Senthilkumar questioned ECI over its silence on the complaint. “He has sent mails. How can ECI say when the primary issue is on the ballot, you have become functus officio (completed its duties)? It is your duty to respond. What is the answer to the issue raised by them? They are saying one postal ballot has gone to some other constituency, what is your answer?” the bench said.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and NR Elango, who appeared for Periyakaruppan, told the court that the issue was unique and peculiar since it concerned only one postal vote out of the total 2,275 postal ballots cast.
Rohatgi also compared it to “a postman’s mistake.” He argued that officials wrongly rejected a postal ballot sent to the wrong Tiruppattur constituency instead of forwarding it to the correct one. He added the disputed ballot could alter the election outcome. “If it’s a valid vote, then it’s a tie. There will have to be a draw of lots,” he argued.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Sethupathi, opposed the petition and said that Periyakaruppan should pursue an election petition instead.
“A crown cannot become a swan. Why on earth can he not file an election petition?” Singhvi argued.
ECI said that since the results had already been declared, only an “election petition” could resolve the dispute.
Periyakaruppan has also sought an interim order restraining Sethupathi from participating in legislative proceedings, including the upcoming trust vote in the assembly.
The court however, refrained from passing any orders and posted the matter for further hearing on Monday.
