CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has criticised the Supreme Court for not adhering to its own observations on the speedy disposal of election petitions, despite the mandate under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which prescribes a six month timeframe for their disposal.
The criticism came while dealing with a case challenging the victory of AIADMK's I.S. Inbadurai in the 2016 Assembly election from the Radhapuram constituency. The election petition had been filed by the losing candidate and former Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker M. Appavu.
The court observed that the apex court had failed to follow the principles laid down in its own judgment in the Mohammed Akbar case regarding the expeditious trial of election petitions in accordance with Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh cautioned that the country could slip towards autocracy if courts continued to disregard their own observations.
“If Courts continue to ignore their own observations made in Mohd. Akbar case, 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,” he said in the order passed on Wednesday.
The judge noted that 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.”
Further, he said the judiciary, being the custodian of the Constitution, should act in tandem with the other organs of the State to retain the pride of the nation as one of the largest democracies in the world.
The judge set aside Inbadurai’s 2016 election victory, declared Appavu, a DMK leader, as the duly elected candidate, and directed the Assembly Secretary to substitute the former’s name with that of the latter in all relevant records.
He added that, unfortunately, in this case, the mandate contained in Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, had been conveniently ignored by the apex court.
Inbadurai had been declared elected in 2016 by a margin of 49 votes. The dispute arose over the rejection of certain postal ballots on the ground that they had been attested by middle school headmasters. Appavu subsequently filed an election petition in the same year.
Rejecting Inbadurai’s contentions, the High Court held that middle school headmasters are gazetted officers and are authorised to attest postal ballots. It consequently ordered a recount of the postal ballots and votes polled in three EVMs.
The recount was conducted in the High Court. However, the results were not declared owing to an interim stay granted by the Supreme Court on an appeal filed by Inbadurai. The interim stay was vacated on May 21, 2026. The High Court subsequently pronounced its verdict, setting aside Inbadurai’s victory and declaring Appavu elected.
