5 days ago
2
The Madras High Court has criticised the Supreme Court for having kept erstwhile Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker M. Appavu’s 2016 predetermination quality case pending for much than six years and past referring it backmost to the High Court without answering the question of instrumentality progressive successful the case.
Justice G. Jayachandran recalled the Supreme Court to person underlined the request to resoluteness predetermination disputes astatine the earliest successful Mohd Akbar versus Ashok Sahu (2015) and wrote: “If courts proceed to disregard their ain observations made successful Mohd.Akbar lawsuit (cited supra), I fearfulness that this state whitethorn besides spell successful the mode of different autocratic countries which gained Independence astir 75 years agone on with us.”
The justice said, the halfway question progressive successful Mr. Appavu’s predetermination quality was whether the headmasters of authorities mediate schools could beryllium considered gazetted officers authorised to attest postal votes, since the Returning Officer (RO) of Radhapuram Assembly Constituency successful 2016 had rejected 203 of specified postal votes.
He said, answering this question was important to the predetermination lawsuit since the RO had declared Mr. Appavu of DMK to person mislaid to I.S. Inbadurai of AIADMK by a slender borderline of 49 votes aft rejecting 203 postal votes of which 153 had been formed successful favour of Mr. Appavu and lone 1 successful favour of Mr. Inbadurai.
“The honourable Supreme Court, aft keeping the substance pending for astir six years (since 2019), thought acceptable that the question has to beryllium kept unfastened successful presumption of the lapse of clip and the word of bureau having expired and nary utile intent would beryllium served successful adjudicating upon the said question successful the Civil Appeal. With large respect, the honourable apex tribunal should person answered this question since this tribunal has already arsenic tribunal of archetypal instance/trial Court fixed a uncovering successful respect of the supra question,” Justice Jayachandran wrote.
The justice recalled that connected October 1, 2019, helium had rendered a categorical uncovering that the headmasters of authorities mediate schools were entitled to attest the postal ballots and consequently, ordered recounting of the postal votes. It was that 2019 bid which had been taken connected entreaty to the Supreme Court by Mr. Inbadurai.
When the postal votes were being recounted connected the High Court premises connected October 4, 2019, the Supreme Court had passed an interim bid staying the declaration of results of recounting. Thereafter, pursuant to a fig of adjournments, the apical tribunal had disposed of the entreaty connected May 26, 2026 by leaving unfastened the question of instrumentality to beryllium decided successful immoderate different lawsuit and by permitting the High Court to proceed with the predetermination petition.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court order, Justice Jayachandran allowed the predetermination petition connected June 3, 2026 and declared Mr. Appavu to person been elected from Radhapuram constituency successful 2016 by a borderline of 103 votes. He besides declared the predetermination of Mr. Inbadurai arsenic null and void and ordered that the latter, who had been wrongly declared arsenic the elected campaigner by the RO successful 2016, indispensable forego each consequential benefits.
Lamenting the hold of 10 agelong years that had occurred successful deciding the predetermination petition, Justice Jayachandran said: “The word ‘unfortunate’ whitethorn not beryllium an capable look to picture the contiguous lawsuit since successful presumption of this court, a sedate mockery of justice, nether the guise of dispensing justness been committed to the radical of India, peculiarly the voters of No. 228 Radhapuram Assembly Constituency, Tirunelveli district, who were forced to carnivore a idiosyncratic arsenic their Assembly typical though helium is not duly elected.”
The justice highlighted that Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act of 1951 states that each predetermination petition should beryllium tried arsenic expeditiously arsenic imaginable and an endeavour should beryllium made to reason the proceedings wrong six months from the day connected which the predetermination petition gets presented to the High Court for trial. “Unfortunately, successful this case, the mandate contained successful Section 86(7) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, been conveniently ignored,” helium rued.
Justice Jayachandran besides said: “Judiciary successful this country, being the custodian of the Constitution, should enactment successful tandem with the different organs of the Constitution, to clasp the pridefulness of this federation arsenic 1 of the largest antiauthoritarian countries successful the world, among the nations which resorted to antiauthoritarian signifier of Government connected gaining Independence, station World War-II. Non-adherence to the mandate contained successful Section 86(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, volition undermine ideology and the existent tone of big franchise.”
