When Tamil Nadu went to the polls in 2016, the AIADMK was re-elected and the voters of Radhapuram constituency got a new MLA in the party’s I S Inbadurai. Ten years later, the Madras High Court declared that Inbadurai had not won the election after all—instead, DMK’s M Appavu was declared victor by 103 votes. Appavu had moved the court after Inbadurai was declared elected at the time by 49 votes. The verdict finally came after Inbadurai had served a full five-year-term as MLA, and after two more Assembly elections. The court noted this with dismay and, in an unusual gesture, censured the Supreme Court.
The crux of the matter was simple—it was the rejection of postal ballots that had been attested by headmasters who were not deemed gazetted officers. In 2019, the HC ruled that headmasters could indeed attest postal votes and ordered a recount. However, Inbadurai challenged the order in the SC, which stayed the results. Finally, this year, the SC decided that with the MLA’s term of office having expired, “no useful purpose is being served in adjudicating upon the said question” and allowed the HC to pass an appropriate order.
The HC rightly stated, “A grave mockery of justice, under the guise of dispensing justice, has been committed to the people of India—particularly the voters [of Radhapuram] who were forced to bear a person as their Assembly representative though he is not duly elected.” It pointed out that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 says election petitions must be decided within six months. It also pointed to the SC’s concurring views on the matter in Mohd Akbar vs Ashok Sahu (2015) before warning that if “courts continue to ignore their own observations made in the 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”.
This fear is warranted. The judiciary is the final port of call for citizens buffeted by the legislative and executive branches. The subversion of the people’s electoral will purely by judicial procrastination is unconscionable. It would hardly be a cliché to say that justice delayed was, effectively, justice denied in this case. The loser this time is democracy at large.
