CHENNAI: The Madras High Court sought the Election Commission’s response to KR Periakaruppan’s plea alleging that a postal ballot belonging to the Sivaganga Tiruppattur constituency was mistakenly sent to the Tiruppattur constituency near Vellore.
The vacation bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthil Kumar questioned the Election Commission for not responding to the DMK candidate’s complaint regarding the wrongly sent postal ballot and directed it to file a report explaining the reason on Monday (May 11).
When the election results were announced on May 4, DMK candidate Periakaruppan had secured 83,364 votes in Tiruppattur constituency in Sivaganga, while TVK candidate Srinivasa Sethupathi had secured 83,365 votes and was declared elected by a margin of one vote.
Alleging that a postal ballot cast for Tiruppattur constituency No 185 in Sivaganga had been incorrectly sent to Tiruppattur constituency No 50 in Tiruppattur, Periakaruppan moved the Madras High Court seeking a direction to secure and include the ballot in the vote count of the Sivaganga Tiruppattur constituency. He also sought an interim order restraining TVK’s Srinivasa Sethupathi from taking part in any proceedings of the Assembly until the writ petition is decided.
When the matter came up for hearing before the vacation bench, Senior Counsels Mukul Rohatgi and NR Elango, appearing for the petitioner, argued that it was a rare situation. If a postal ballot is sent to the wrong constituency, it should be returned to the correct constituency. The Returning Officer should not have rejected it, but should have stated that it did not belong to his constituency and forwarded it to the correct constituency. Despite representations in this regard to the Election Commission, no reply had been received.
“Suppose that vote comes here. Then the voting is equal. Then under the law and the Constitution, there has to be a draw of lots,” they submitted.
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Raghavachari, appearing for TVK candidate Srinivasa Sethupathi, argued that the interim plea seeking to restrain him from participating in legislative proceedings was beyond the scope of the main relief sought, namely securing and counting the postal ballot. They submitted that once a candidate had been declared elected, he must be permitted to discharge his duties and that any restraint would adversely affect the democratic rights of the electorate.
Counsel Tarun Rao, appearing for the Election Commission of India, submitted that after the elections were over, the Returning Officer would become functus officio. However, he admitted that the law does not specify what should be done if a postal ballot was wrongly sent to another constituency. He also informed the court that all election records would be kept safe until an election petition is filed.