The Madras High Court has criticised the Supreme Court for having kept former Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker M. Appavu’s 2016 election dispute case pending for more than six years and then referring it back to the High Court without answering the question of law involved in the case.

Justice G. Jayachandran recalled the Supreme Court to have underlined the need to resolve election disputes at the earliest in Mohd Akbar versus Ashok Sahu (2015) and wrote: “If courts continue to ignore their own observations made in Mohd.Akbar case (cited supra), I fear that this country may also go in the way of other autocratic countries which gained Independence around 75 years ago along with us.”

The judge said, the core question involved in Mr. Appavu’s election dispute was whether the headmasters of government middle schools could be considered gazetted officers authorised to attest postal votes, since the Returning Officer (RO) of Radhapuram Assembly Constituency in 2016 had rejected 203 of such postal votes.

He said, answering this question was crucial to the election case since the RO had declared Mr. Appavu of DMK to have lost to I.S. Inbadurai of AIADMK by a slender margin of 49 votes after rejecting 203 postal votes of which 153 had been cast in favour of Mr. Appavu and only one in favour of Mr. Inbadurai.

“The honourable Supreme Court, after keeping the matter pending for about six years (since 2019), thought fit that the question has to be kept open in view of the lapse of time and the term of office having expired and no useful purpose would be served in adjudicating upon the said question in the Civil Appeal. With great respect, the honourable apex court should have answered this question since this court has already as court of first instance/trial Court given a finding in respect of the above question,” Justice Jayachandran wrote.

The judge recalled that on October 1, 2019, he had rendered a categorical finding that the headmasters of government middle schools were entitled to attest the postal ballots and consequently, ordered recounting of the postal votes. It was that 2019 order which had been taken on appeal to the Supreme Court by Mr. Inbadurai.

When the postal votes were being recounted on the High Court premises on October 4, 2019, the Supreme Court had passed an interim order staying the declaration of results of recounting. Thereafter, pursuant to a number of adjournments, the top court had disposed of the appeal on May 26, 2026 by leaving open the question of law to be decided in some other case and by permitting the High Court to proceed with the election petition.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court order, Justice Jayachandran allowed the election petition on June 3, 2026 and declared Mr. Appavu to have been elected from Radhapuram constituency in 2016 by a margin of 103 votes. He also declared the election of Mr. Inbadurai as null and void and ordered that the latter, who had been wrongly declared as the elected candidate by the RO in 2016, must forego all consequential benefits.

Lamenting the delay of 10 long years that had occurred in deciding the election petition, Justice Jayachandran said: “The term ‘unfortunate’ may not be an adequate expression to describe the present case since in view of this court, a grave mockery of justice, under the guise of dispensing justice been committed to the people of India, particularly the voters of No. 228 Radhapuram Assembly Constituency, Tirunelveli district, who were forced to bear a person as their Assembly representative though he is not duly elected.”

The judge highlighted that Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act of 1951 states that every election petition should be tried as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour should be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date on which the election petition gets presented to the High Court for trial. “Unfortunately, in this case, the mandate contained in Section 86(7) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, been conveniently ignored,” he rued.

Justice Jayachandran also said: “Judiciary in this country, being the custodian of the Constitution, should act in tandem with the other organs of the Constitution, to retain the pride of this nation as one of the largest democratic countries in the world, among the nations which resorted to democratic form of Government on gaining Independence, post World War-II. Non-adherence to the mandate contained in Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, will undermine democracy and the true spirit of adult franchise.”