In a strongly worded judgment, the Madras High Court has warned that delays in deciding election disputes can seriously undermine democratic values and even push the country towards autocratic tendencies. The Court made these observations while deciding a long-pending election petition arising out of the 2016 Radhapuram Assembly election in Tamil Nadu.

Justice G. Jayachandran criticized the more than six-year delay in the disposal of an appeal before the Supreme Court of India concerning the election dispute. The Court observed that election petitions are meant to be decided expeditiously under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and failure to do so defeats the very purpose of electoral democracy.

The Court remarked that if judicial directions regarding speedy disposal of election cases continue to be ignored, India could risk following the path of certain nations that slipped into autocratic governance despite gaining independence around the same time.

"A Grave Mockery of Justice"

The dispute concerned the 2016 election from the Radhapuram Assembly Constituency, where DMK leader M. Appavu lost to AIADMK candidate I. S. Inbadurai by a margin of 49 votes.

Appavu challenged the result, alleging wrongful rejection of postal ballots and irregularities in counting Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) votes. In 2019, the High Court ordered verification of postal ballots and recounting of certain EVM votes, holding that the rejection of 203 postal ballots was improper because the ballots had been attested by middle school headmasters who qualified as gazetted officers.

Inbadurai challenged this order before the Supreme Court. While the Apex Court permitted the counting process to continue, it stayed the declaration of the result. The appeal remained pending for over six years and was finally disposed of on May 21, 2026, after the Assembly term had already ended and two subsequent elections had been conducted.

Expressing dissatisfaction with the delay, Justice Jayachandran observed that the case represented a "grave mockery of justice" for the voters of the constituency, who were represented for five years by a person who was ultimately found not to have been duly elected.

The recount revealed that out of the 203 postal ballots earlier rejected:

• 153 votes were in favour of Appavu;
• Only 1 vote was in favour of Inbadurai;
• 44 votes remained invalid.

Based on the revised count, the High Court concluded that Appavu had actually won the 2016 election by a margin of 103 votes.

Accordingly, the Court:

• Declared Inbadurai's election void;
• Declared Appavu as the duly elected MLA for the 2016–2021 term;
• Directed the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly to substitute Appavu's name in official records for that term.

The Court clarified that there was no misconduct on Inbadurai's part and therefore he would not incur any disqualification. However, since he was ultimately held not to have been duly elected, the Court ruled that he would not be entitled to claim pensionary benefits as an MLA for the 2016–2021 period.

The judgment is significant not merely for changing the result of a decade-old election dispute, but for its broader message on electoral justice. The Court emphasized that constitutional courts cannot avoid deciding election disputes merely because time has passed, stressing that timely adjudication is essential to preserving the integrity of the democratic process.

Case Details: Appavu v. Inbadurai (Madras High Court, 2026), Election Petition No.2 of 2016

Date of Decision:- 03.06.2026

Scan the below QR Code to Download the Judgment:-