Tamil Nadu’s ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party MLA R. Sreenivasa Sethupathi moved the Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 12, 2026), within hours of the Madras High Court restricting him from participating in a trust vote on May 13.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant agreed to list the appeal on May 13 following an oral mentioning made by senior advocate A.M. Singhvi and advocate Yash S. Vijay, representing the Tirupattur MLA, for an urgent hearing.

A Vacation Bench of the High Court headed by Justice L. Victoria Gowri had restrained Mr. Sethupathi from voting in the confidence motion in the 17th Legislative Assembly, scheduled to take place on the floor of the House in less than the next 24 hours.

The High Court order was based on a petition filed by rival Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) candidate K.R. Periakaruppan, who lost the constituency to Mr. Sethupathi by the margin of a single vote in the April 23 elections.

While Mr. Periakaruppan, a former State Minister, secured 83,364 votes, Mr. Sethupathi got one more vote to finish the tally at 83,365.

The Madras High Court order leaves the newly-formed C. Joseph Vijay-led government with a razor-thin majority in the Assembly. After days of delay, Governor Rajendra Arlekar had finally invited Mr. Vijay to form the government when he could show support from 120 MLAs, just two more than the 118-majority mark.

Though the High Court clarified that its interim order would not amount to setting aside the election win of Mr. Sethupathi, the judicial intervention, that too on the eve of the confidence motion, has reduced the number of MLAs supporting TVK to 119, precariously one more than the majority threshold in the 234-seat Assembly.

Mr. Periakaruppan has filed a caveat in Mr. Sethupathi’s appeal in the apex court in order to ensure that he would be heard before the apex court passed any orders on May 13.

The DMK leader had submitted that the counting process in the constituency was redolent with discrepancies in the electronic voting machine statistics and handling of postal ballots. He had argued that there was a mix-up in counting a postal ballot, which was cast in his favour, because it was sent to the wrong constituency.