Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) former Minister K.R. Periakaruppan on Sunday complained before the Madras High Court that the existence of two Legislative Assembly constituencies by the same name ‘Tirupattur’ in Tamil Nadu had led to his defeat in the just concluded 2026 elections by a single vote.

A summer vacation Bench of Justices L. Victoria Gowri and N. Senthilkumar held a special sitting on a holiday to hear an urgent writ petition moved by him to claim that a postal vote cast in his favour in Tirupattur constituency in Sivaganga district was inadvertently sent to the Tirupattur constituency in Tirupattur district.

Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi and N.R. Elango, representing the writ petitioner, brought it to the notice of the court that constituency number 50 bears the name Tirupattur and constituency number 185 also bears the name Tirupattur though the former falls in Tirupattur revenue district and the latter in Sivaganga district.

They said, Mr. Periakaruppan had been contesting from Tirupattur constituency in Sivanganga district from 2006 and won every other election held since then. Only this year, he was declared to have lost the election by a margin of just a single vote to Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate R. Seenivasa Sethupathy.

The court was told a postal vote cast in favour of the writ petitioner had been wrongly despatched to the Tirupattur constituency in Tirupattur district. If that vote had been redirected to Sivaganga district, the petitioner and the TVK candidate would have ended up securing equal number of votes, the counsel said.

In the event of such a tie between the two candidates, the winner ought to have been declared on the basis of drawal of lots. However, this entire exercise was not conducted because of the failure of the Returning Officer in Tirupattur district to forward the postal vote to Sivaganga district, the counsel added.

They also submitted an affidavit sworn by S. Rajendran, 61, who was the counting agent for DMK candidate A. Nallathambi in Tirupattur district. The deponent had told the court one postal vote was kept aside and not taken into account in Tirupattur district because it had been cast in favour of Mr. Periakaruppan who had contested in Sivaganga district.

Mr. Rajendran said he had informed Mr. Periakarruppan about the postal vote only on May 5, 2026, a day after the declaration of the results and on coming to know through the media that the latter had lost by a single vote. Immediately, the writ petitioner gave representations to the election officials and approached the High Court with the present writ petition.

TVK candidate’s arguments

On the other hand, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi and V. Raghavachari, representing the TVK MLA Mr. Sethupathy said, the former Minister ought to have filed an election petition challenging the victory of their client instead of having invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

They also said, the Returning Officer had become functus officio after the declaration of the result and no writ of mandamus could be issued against such an officer. “There is nothing in the matter which needs a Sunday hearing. This is a clever camouflage of an election petition into a writ petition,” Mr. Singhvi said.

On his part, Election Commission of India counsel Tarun Rao Kallakuru also stated that the dispute could be resolved only by way of filing an election petition and not through a writ petition. He said, it would be impossible for a postal ballot to have got despatched to a wrong constituency when such despatch happens on the basis of postal pincode numbers.

After hearing all of them, the judges directed the EC to file its submissions in writing and adjourned the case to Monday (May 11, 2026).