Madras HC Records Postal Vote Writ as Withdrawn After Supreme Court Direction in SLP
A Division Bench formally closes a writ petition over misrouted Tirupattur postal votes, acting on the Supreme Court’s order in SLP No.17415 of 2026.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, on 23 July 2026 formally recorded the dismissal as withdrawn of a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition had sought a writ of Mandamus directing election officials to secure postal votes belonging to Assembly Constituency No.185 (Tirupattur, Sivagangai District) that had allegedly been sent in error to Assembly Constituency No.50 (Tirupattur, Tiruppattur District), and to account those votes to the correct constituency for the 17th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections held on 23 April 2026. The matter came before the Division Bench not on its own motion but because the Supreme Court of India had directed the case to be listed before the High Court through its order in SLP No.17415 of 2026, dated 21 July 2026.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The petitioner, KR.Periakaruppan, a resident of Aralikottai Village in Singampunari Taluk, Sivagangai District, approached the Madras High Court by way of a writ petition targeting, among others, the Chief Election Officer of the Election Commission of India, the Chief Electoral Officer and Principal Secretary to Government (Public Elections Department) at Fort St.George, Chennai, the District Election Officer-cum-Collector of Sivagangai, and the Returning Officers of both the No.185 Tirupattur Assembly Constituency in Sivagangai District and the No.50 Tirupattur Assembly Constituency in Tiruppattur District.
The gravamen of the petition was that postal votes intended for No.185 Tirupattur Assembly Constituency had been wrongly dispatched to No.50 Tirupattur Assembly Constituency — two constituencies sharing a near-identical name but belonging to different districts. The prayer sought that the official respondents be directed to forthwith secure those postal votes and attribute them to the correct constituency. R6, identified as R.Seenivasa Sethupathi of Karaikudi, was also arrayed as a respondent, though no appearance was recorded on his behalf before the Madras High Court.
Route to the High Court: The Supreme Court’s Role
The writ petition had not simply been filed before the Madras High Court in the ordinary course. The Division Bench recorded that the matter was listed before it “pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued in SLP No.17415 of 2026 on 21.07.2026.” This sequence indicates that by the time the case returned to the High Court, the Supreme Court had itself ordered the withdrawal of the writ petition. The High Court’s role on 23 July 2026 was therefore limited to formally recording that withdrawal.
The order makes plain that no substantive hearing on the merits of the postal vote dispute took place before the Division Bench. The court’s function was to give effect to the Supreme Court’s direction and formally close the proceedings at the Madras High Court level.
Interim Applications Also Closed
Along with the main writ petition, W.M.P.Nos.20543 and 20544 of 2026 — the two miscellaneous petitions filed as interim applications in the writ — were also before the court. As a natural consequence of the main petition being dismissed as withdrawn, the Division Bench dismissed those interim applications as well.
Order
The Division Bench, by its order dated 23 July 2026, formally recorded that W.P.No.19287 of 2026 stands dismissed as withdrawn, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s direction in SLP No.17415 of 2026. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.20543 and 20544 of 2026 were also dismissed. The court made no order as to costs.