Madras HC Declares M. Appavu Elected from Radhapuram in 2016 Poll, Ten Years On
Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran allowed the election petition, voiding the return of I.S. Inbadurai and declaring M. Appavu the duly elected MLA for the 2016–2021 term after a decade of litigation.
On 3 June 2026, Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Madras, allowed Election Petition No.2 of 2016 filed by M. Appavu against the declared winner of the No.228 Radhapuram Assembly Constituency election held on 16 May 2016. The court declared I.S. Inbadurai's election void and declared Appavu the duly elected Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly for the 2016–2021 term. The judgment arrives nearly ten years after the election, after two further general elections had already been held, and after the Supreme Court returned the matter to the High Court without deciding the central legal question. The court described the delay as “a grave mockery of justice” visited upon the voters of Radhapuram.
The 2016 Election and the Margin of 49 Votes
The Radhapuram Assembly Constituency election of 16 May 2016 was declared in favour of I.S. Inbadurai by the Returning Officer, with a margin of 49 votes over M. Appavu. Appavu filed the election petition contending that valid votes cast in his favour had been wrongly rejected and that a recount was warranted.
The central dispute concerned 203 postal ballots. The Returning Officer had rejected those ballots as invalid on the ground that they were attested by Headmasters of Middle Schools, who were said not to be Gazetted Officers. The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, require that declarations in Form 13-A accompanying postal ballots be attested by a Gazetted Officer. Inbadurai's camp argued that Middle School Headmasters did not qualify.
A second strand of the petition concerned the 19th, 20th and 21st rounds of counting. The Returning Officer, examined as a court witness, admitted that he had not filled Part II of Form 17C for those rounds — the form that records the result of counting — and had instead prepared a replica kept in a separate sealed cover. The petitioner argued this non-compliance with Rule 56C(2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, required those EVM rounds to be recounted.
Trial, Evidence, and the October 2019 Order
After the petition survived an application to reject it — and after Inbadurai's appeal against that dismissal was withdrawn from the Supreme Court after 14 months — the case was assigned to Dr. Justice Jayachandran. The court conducted a full trial. Appavu examined himself as PW1 and his agent as PW2. The current and former Returning Officers were summoned and examined as court witnesses. Documents including Form 17C records for rounds 19, 20 and 21 were marked as exhibits.
On 24 September 2019, evidence was closed and arguments were heard. On 1 October 2019, the court passed a detailed order concluding that the rejection of the 203 postal ballots was improper, that the attestation by Middle School Headmasters was valid under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.158 dated 6 November 2009, and that the omission to fill Part II of Form 17C for the three EVM rounds required a recount. The Election Commission of India was directed to produce the relevant Control Units and all postal ballots before the Registrar General of the Madras High Court on 4 October 2019 for supervised recounting.
The Supreme Court Interregnum: Six Years of Adjournments
Recounting began in the High Court campus on 4 October 2019. That afternoon, the Supreme Court entertained Special Leave Petition (C) No.24183 of 2019 filed by Inbadurai and directed that the counting process could continue but results were not to be declared.
What followed was a prolonged series of adjournments. The SLP was listed on 25 October 2019, 13 November 2019, 22 November 2019, 29 November 2019, 12 December 2019, 4 February 2020, and beyond. On 23 February 2021, the Supreme Court directed the Registrar to submit the counting report. On 16 March 2021, a bench opened the sealed cover and recorded what the report showed: of the 203 rejected postal ballots, 153 had been polled in favour of Inbadurai, only one in favour of Appavu, and 44 were rejected. The bench noted that if those ballots were counted, Inbadurai would stand elected; if rejected, Appavu would succeed. The sole question remaining was whether Middle School Headmasters are Gazetted Officers for the purpose of attesting Form 13-A declarations.
Arguments were partly heard on 23 and 25 March 2021, with senior counsel Mr. Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Inbadurai and senior counsel Mr. P. Wilson for Appavu. The matter was then adjourned repeatedly. By 28 July 2022, the 2016–2021 term had expired and the Supreme Court noted that only the manner of counting remained in issue. On 25 August 2022, the court noted that Inbadurai had been elected again and that the matter might not survive, citing Lokanth Padhan v. Birendra Kumar Sahu, (1974) 1 SCC 526. On 1 February 2023, the court observed that with even the next elections over and Inbadurai having succeeded again, there were “better and more urgent matters to be heard.”
On 21 May 2026, the Supreme Court finally disposed of the civil appeal. It kept open the question of whether Headmasters are Gazetted Officers, citing the lapse of time and the expiry of the term of office, and returned the matter to the High Court to pass appropriate consequential orders.
The High Court's Reasoning on Headmasters as Gazetted Officers
Dr. Justice Jayachandran noted that the Supreme Court had not reversed the High Court's finding of 1 October 2019 on the Gazetted Officer question. That finding, recorded in paragraphs 46 and 47 of the earlier order, held that the purpose of attestation in Form 13-A is to verify the identity of the elector — a function analogous to what polling and presiding officers perform at booths. Where the State Government has classified its officers with different terminology and conferred attestation power on officers of a certain rank and above, those officers must be treated as Gazetted Officers for the purpose of attesting Form 13-A declarations. The rejection of 203 postal ballots on the ground that they were attested by Middle School Headmasters was held to be inconsistent with the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 as amended.
The court held that since this finding stood unreversed, it was bound to give effect to it. The court expressed its view that the Supreme Court should have answered the Gazetted Officer question rather than keeping it open, given that the High Court had already decided it as the court of first instance. The court stated it had a constitutional duty and had taken a solemn oath to protect and preserve the Constitution, and was not inclined to abdicate that responsibility.
The Arithmetic of the Recount
The court drew out the consequence of the recount report. Of the 203 postal ballots originally rejected as invalid, 153 were found to have been polled in favour of Appavu, and only one in favour of Inbadurai. Forty-four were rejected as invalid even on recount. The original margin against Appavu was 49 votes. Adding 153 valid votes to Appavu's tally and one to Inbadurai's produces a net swing of 152 votes to Appavu, giving him a winning margin of 103 votes. The court recorded that Appavu had “Won” the election from No.228 Radhapuram Constituency by a margin of 103 votes.
Observations on Delay in Election Petitions
The court invoked Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which directs that every election petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and that an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months of presentation to the High Court. The court noted that this mandate had been “conveniently ignored” in the present case.
The court quoted at length from the Supreme Court's own observations in Mohd. Akbar v. Ashok Sahu and Others, (2015) 14 SCC 519, where the court had identified the reasons for delay in election disputes — high stakes for parties, the technical nature of election law, and the absence of dedicated benches — and had recommended that Chief Justices of High Courts create dedicated benches for election petitions. The court noted that those observations had not been acted upon in this case, and expressed concern that continued non-adherence to Section 86(7) would undermine democracy and the spirit of adult franchise.
Order
Dr. Justice Jayachandran allowed Election Petition No.2 of 2016 with the following directions:
The election of I.S. Inbadurai from No.228 Radhapuram Assembly Constituency in the election held on 16 May 2016 is declared void. M. Appavu is declared the duly elected Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from No.228 Radhapuram Assembly Constituency for the term 2016–2021.
Inbadurai is required to forego all consequential benefits of having been declared elected. However, the court held that the improper declaration was not attributable to his conduct, and accordingly the order does not disqualify him in any manner except from claiming pensionary benefits as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for the 2016–2021 term.
The Secretary, Legislative Assembly, Government of Tamil Nadu, is directed to substitute Appavu's name as the representative of No.228 Radhapuram Assembly Constituency for the term 2016–2021 in all official records.
No order as to costs was made.