Madras HC Upholds TVK MLA's One-Vote Win Over DMK

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan rejected the election petition at the threshold, saying a disputed postal ballot claim had no material to back it up.

A single vote decided this seat in April. On Monday, a single ruling decided that it stays decided.

The Madras High Court has rejected an election petition from former minister and DMK candidate KR Periyakaruppan, who wanted the Tiruppattur (Sivaganga) result overturned. TVK's R Seenivasa Sethupathy won that seat by exactly one vote in the 2026 Assembly elections, 83,375 to 83,374, in results declared on May 4. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan threw out the petition without letting it go to trial, granting an application filed by Sethupathy's side to that effect.

For Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, the party actor Vijay launched and steered into its first Assembly contest, this ruling matters beyond one constituency. It keeps intact one of the tightest and most closely watched results of the whole election.

A postal ballot, two Tiruppatturs, and a missing paper trail

Periyakaruppan's case rested on an unusual coincidence: Tamil Nadu has two Assembly seats both named Tiruppattur, one in Sivaganga district and another in Tiruppattur district itself. He alleged a postal ballot meant for the Sivaganga seat got sent to the other Tiruppattur instead and was never forwarded back, potentially costing him the election.

To back this up, he leaned on an affidavit from S Rajendran, counting agent for DMK's A Nallathambi, who contested the other Tiruppattur seat. Rajendran said he'd come across the postal ballot in question.

The court wasn't convinced that was enough. Justice Ilanthiraiyan noted the claim rested almost entirely on that one affidavit, with nothing else to show how the alleged mix-up actually happened or whether it changed anything. "The allegation regarding the alleged wrong receipt of one postal ballot rests substantially upon the affidavit of the election agent and, in the absence of any supporting material, the manner in which such alleged irregularity occurred and its actual effect upon the result of the election remains unsubstantiated," the judge observed, as reported by The Hindu.

Sethupathy's senior counsel V Raghavachari had argued that election officials track postal ballots by constituency number, not name, which makes the kind of confusion Periyakaruppan described far less plausible. The court agreed, pointing to Form 13C, the document accompanying every postal ballot that carries the constituency number, name, district and full address. Under Rule 18A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, these ballots go to facilitation centres before officials move them to the right destination, and the judge found no proof that process broke down here.

Periyakaruppan had also flagged other issues around counting, re-verification and record discrepancies, all contested by Sethupathy's team and dismissed by the court for lack of material effect on the outcome.

The numbers tell their own story. Periyakaruppan pulled in 1,183 postal votes against Sethupathy's 365. Officials even went back and re-verified 306 rejected postal ballots after the one-vote result came in. Nothing changed.

With the petition rejected at the threshold, Sethupathy keeps his seat and TVK keeps its MLA. Whether Periyakaruppan appeals further is the next thing to watch.