One-vote victory row: Madras HC rejects DMK candidate’s election petition challenging TVK MLA Sethupathi’s win
Madras High Court rejects DMK candidate's petition challenging R Seenivasa Sethupathi's narrow one-vote victory in the Tiruppattur Assembly constituency.
The Madras High Court has delivered a significant ruling regarding the narrowest possible victory in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. On Monday, the court dismissed an election petition filed by DMK candidate KR Periyakaruppan, which sought to overturn the victory of TVK MLA R Seenivasa Sethupathi in the Tiruppattur Assembly constituency.
The election was one of the most closely contested battles in the state, with Sethupathi securing 83,375 votes, while Periyakaruppan trailed by a single vote, finishing with 83,374 votes.
Court finds no material impact on election result
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, presiding over the case, allowed Sethupathi’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court concluded that the petition lacked the essential material facts required to establish a complete cause of action under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The petitioner had raised several serious allegations, including:
- The alleged misdirection of a postal ballot.
- Discrepancies during the counting process.
- A failure to re-verify rejected postal ballots.
However, the court held that these allegations, even if taken at face value, failed to demonstrate that any irregularity had materially affected the final outcome of the election. Specifically, the court found no independent evidence to support the claim that a postal ballot intended for the Tiruppattur constituency in Sivaganga district was incorrectly received or retained by the Returning Officer of the Tiruppattur constituency.
Clarification on re-verification and postal ballots
A central point of contention involved Clause 15.25 of the Handbook for Returning Officers, 2023. This clause mandates re-verification when the margin of victory is smaller than the number of postal ballots rejected as invalid. While the petitioner argued this was not followed, the court clarified the scope of this provision.
The court noted that the provision does not authorize a full recount of votes that have already been counted. Drawing on precedents from the Supreme Court—specifically Ramesh Rout v. Rabindra Nath Rout and Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddygari—the court emphasized that while the Handbook instructions are binding, a violation only vitiates an election if it is proven to have a material effect on the result.
Finality of the counting process
The court further observed that the counting process was conducted transparently, with EVM results and postal ballot counts shown to and approved by the respective election agents. Consequently, the court ruled that a request for recounting or re-verification at the final stage of counting could not be sustained simply because the margin of victory was a single vote.
The petition had also requested a thorough examination of VVPAT slips, as well as the EVM memory and micro-controllers, but the court found no basis to proceed with these demands given the lack of evidence regarding procedural violations that could have altered the election's outcome.