Madras High Court Criticises Supreme Court Over Handling of Election Dispute Case

A senior judge of the Madras High Court has expressed strong disapproval of the Supreme Court's decision to leave a critical question of law unresolved after a six-year delay in an election petition.

The Madras High Court has issued a pointed critique of the Supreme Court for its handling of a 2016 election dispute involving former Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker M. Appavu. Justice G. Jayachandran expressed concern that the top court kept the matter pending for over six years only to refer it back to the High Court without providing a definitive ruling on the underlying legal questions.

A Question of Disenfranchisement

At the heart of the case is the 2016 electoral contest for the Radhapuram Assembly Constituency. The Returning Officer had disqualified 203 postal ballots, a decision that proved pivotal as the DMK’s M. Appavu was declared to have lost to the AIADMK’s I.S. Inbadurai by a narrow margin of just 49 votes. Notably, 153 of the rejected postal votes were in favour of Mr. Appavu, while only one supported Mr. Inbadurai.

The central legal issue was whether headmasters of government middle schools qualified as gazetted officers empowered to attest postal votes. In his 2019 ruling, Justice Jayachandran had determined that these headmasters were indeed authorised to do so, and subsequently ordered a recount of the ballots.

Judicial Efficiency and Accountability

When the recount process began in October 2019, the Supreme Court intervened with an interim stay following an appeal filed by Mr. Inbadurai. The matter remained in limbo until May 2026, when the apex court disposed of the appeal by stating that because the term of office had expired, there was no practical purpose in adjudicating the specific question of law.

Justice Jayachandran argued that this outcome ignored the judicial duty to resolve such matters decisively. Referencing the Supreme Court’s own 2015 observations in Mohd Akbar versus Ashok Sahu, the judge warned that failing to address election disputes with urgency risks undermining democratic institutions. He cautioned that if the judiciary continues to bypass its own stated principles on timely resolution, it could mirror the decline seen in other autocratic nations that achieved independence in the same era as India.

The High Court judge lamented that by leaving the issue open, the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to clarify a vital point of election law, despite the trial court having already provided a categorical finding on the validity of the attestation process.