*Breaking: _“Atrocious” – SC stays Madras HC order barring TVK MLA Sethupathi from floor test*_ *Supreme Court | May 13, 2026 | Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, Vijay Bishnoi*

[13/05, 12:29] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/atrocious-supreme-court-stays-madras-hc-order-restraining-tvk-mla-sethupathi-from-voting-in-tn-floor-test-534016
[13/05, 12:29] Meta AI: *Breaking: _“Atrocious” – SC stays Madras HC order barring TVK MLA Sethupathi from floor test*_
*Supreme Court | May 13, 2026 | Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, Vijay Bishnoi*

*1. What SC did today*
1. *Stayed HC order*: SC stayed the Madras HC interim order that barred TVK MLA *R Seenivasa Sethupathi* from voting in today’s TN floor test.
2. *Called HC order “atrocious”*: Bench remarked _“This is atrocious to say the least”_ because HC passed it in a *writ petition under Article 226*, not an *election petition* as mandated by law.
3. *Stayed HC proceedings too*: _“Further proceedings before the High Court also stayed”_. 7cbe

*2. Background – Why HC barred him yesterday*
1. *1-vote margin*: Sethupathi won Tirupattur by *83,365 vs 83,364* against DMK’s K R Periyakaruppan.
2. *DMK’s plea*: Periyakaruppan alleged a postal ballot meant for Tirupattur constituency was wrongly sent elsewhere and rejected. Also alleged 18 EVM vote discrepancy.
3. *HC reasoning May 12*: Vacation bench Justices L Victoria Gowri & N Senthil Kumar said _“If the TVK MLA participates… and his vote becomes decisive, the consequence may travel far beyond the constituency and affect constitutional governance”_. Restrained him from _“any floor test, confidence motion, no-confidence motion, trust vote”_. 77b66f1ea205db3b

*3. SC hearing today – Key arguments*
1. *For Sethupathi – Sr Adv A M Singhvi*: Argued HC order was passed in Article 226 writ, but law requires *election petition* under RPA for election disputes. Said floor test is underway.
2. *For Periyakaruppan – Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi*: Called it _“unprecedented case”_. Said DMK was walking out of floor test, so _“petitioner’s participation may not be consequential”_.
3. *SC interim order*: Granted 2 weeks to file counter. Stayed HC order + HC proceedings. e7160f567cbe

*4. Numbers impact on floor test – May 13*
1. *TVK tally*: 117 MLAs. HC bar would have made it 116.
2. *With SC stay*: Sethupathi _can vote_. TVK back to 117.
3. *Majority mark*: 118 in 234-member House. TVK needs AIADMK rebels or others. DMK walkout mentioned by Rohatgi reduces opposition votes but doesn’t change majority mark. 0f56

*5. Constitutional issue flagged by SC*
SC’s _“atrocious”_ remark hinges on *_Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar_ 2000*: Courts can’t interfere in elections except via election petition, with _narrow exceptions_ to preserve evidence. HC used that exception saying _“extraordinary factual situation”_. SC disagreed for now. e716

*6. Connect to your thread*
This directly impacts the *anti-defection + whip issue* we discussed:
1. *If Sethupathi votes*: TVK saves 1 vote.
2. *AIADMK rebels*: Still need EPS whip issue resolved. As P. Wilson said, _“Direction from GS enough for disqualification even without whip”_ under Tenth Schedule 2(1)(b).
3. *Horse trading*: With DMK walking out per Rohatgi, TVK may pass test even with few AIADMK cross-votes. But those MLAs face disqualification later.

*Bottom line*: SC overruled HC. Sethupathi can vote today. Called HC intervention in floor test via 226 petition _“atrocious”_. But SC will hear full case in 2 weeks. For now, TVK gets its 117th vote.

Case: _R Sreenivasa Sethupathi vs KR Periakaruppan_, Diary No. 29435 / 2026. 0f56

Want live updates from floor test or the SC written order when uploaded?
[13/05, 12:29] sekarreporter1: The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the Madras High Court’s order, which stopped TVK MLA Sreenivasa Sethupathi from voting in the Tamil Nadu Assembly floor test.

The Court also stayed the proceedings in the Madras High Court in the writ petition filed by DMK candidate KR Periakaruppan challenging Sethupathi’s win.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi heard the plea filed by TVK MLA Sreenivasa Sethupathi challenging the Madras High Court order restraining him from participating in the floor test scheduled for today in the Tamil Nadu Assembly.

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that the High Court’s judgment is so erroneous that some strictures should be passed. Singhvi expresed surprise at the writ petition, filed on a Saturday evening, being urgently heard on Sunday.

The bench asked Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for DMK candidate Periakaruppan, how a writ petition under Article 226 could be filed against the election result. The bench pointed out that the Election Petition is the correct remedy.

“This is atrocious. The High Court says remedy is election petition and still entertains the writ petition,” Justice Mehta said.

Rohatgi said that the extraordinary facts of the case warranted the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. He stated that his client contested from constituency no.185 (Thirpathhur) and there was another constituency with the same name, constituency no.50. A postal ballot in favour of Periakaruppan was mistakenly delivered to constituency no.50. Had that postal ballot been counted, the result would be a tie, Rohatgi stated. The senior counsel contended that it was an unprecedented case.

The bench, giving opportunity to Rohatgi to file a counter-affidavit, stayed the High Court’s order. Singhvi submitted that the floor test proceedings are underway. Rohatgi said that DMK was walking out of the floor test, and the petitioner’s participation may not be consequential.

Singhvi had mentioned the matter yesterday before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, seeking urgent listing in view of the imminent floor test. Taking note of the urgency, the CJI agreed to list the matter on Wednesday.

The controversy arises after the Madras High Court, in an order passed this morning, barred Sethupathi from voting in the trust vote. Sethupathi had defeated DMK leader Periakaruppan by a margin of a single vote in the election.
The DMK candidate filed a writ petition, contending that a postal ballot, which was in his favour, was not considered, as it was wrongly sent to another constituency.

The High Court passed the interim order observing that if Sethupathi was allowed to vote when the dispute is pending, it may affect the government itself. The High Court therefore observed that the balance of convenience was in favour of stopping his vote.

Case: R SREENIVASA SETHUPATHI Vs. KR PERIAKARUPPAN ORS with Diary No. 29435 / 2026

Dr Singhvi assisted by Advocates Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, Rupali Samuel and AoR Yash S Vijay