The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed a Madras High Court order that had barred Sreenivasa Sethupathi, MLA-elect from Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), from participating in the Tamil Nadu Assembly proceedings, including the confidence motion moved by Chief Minister Vijay.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi termed the high court's intervention "atrocious" and stayed both the operation of the order and further proceedings before the high court, per a report by Hindustan Times.
"The operation of the impugned order is stayed. Further proceedings before the High Court shall remain stayed," the bench directed while issuing notice in the matter, per the HT report.
Also Read | West Bengal post-poll violence reaches Calcutta High Court, hearing on Tuesday
Floor test continues amid legal battle
The Supreme Court's order came while the confidence motion was already underway in the Assembly. By the time the order was uploaded on the apex court website, Vijay had won the trust vote with 144 votes in favour and 22 against, while five members abstained.
The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) staged a walkout before the confidence motion. Leader of Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin announced that the party would boycott the proceedings.
Postal ballot dispute triggered case
The controversy stemmed from a Madras High Court order passed on Tuesday concerning a postal ballot dispute in the Tiruppattur constituency. Sethupathi had defeated DMK candidate KR Periyakaruppan by a margin of just one vote.
Appearing for Sethupathi, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the high court order was "blatantly illegal", per HT.
"This is one case where strictures are required," Singhvi told the court.
The Supreme Court also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226. Addressing senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Periyakaruppan, the bench asked, "How did you file a writ petition under Article 226?"
SC questions High Court intervention
The apex court observed that election disputes should ordinarily be addressed through election petitions under the Representation of the People Act.
Also Read | Delhi court denies bail to Al-Falah University chief in ₹415 crore money laundering case
"This is atrocious to say the least…the high court says that the remedy is an election petition but still entertained an Article 226 petition? This will take away the remedy of an election tribunal," the bench remarked during the hearing.
Periyakaruppan's side argued that confusion arose because two constituencies shared the name Tiruppattur, allegedly leading to a postal ballot being sent to the wrong constituency and rejected instead of being counted. However, the Supreme Court was not convinced at this stage and stayed the proceedings.
