New Delhi, May 14 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed a Madras High Court order that had restrained Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA-elect Sreenivasa Sethupathi from participating in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, including in the confidence motion moved by chief minister Vijay, terming the high court's intervention in an election dispute as "atrocious" and legally unsustainable. A bench of justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi suspended the operation of the high court's interim order and stayed further proceedings before the high court, observing that the writ petition itself ought not to have been entertained in view of the constitutional scheme governing election disputes. The Supreme Court's intervention came even as the floor test proceedings were underway in the Assembly. By the time the apex court passed its order and directed its immediate upload on the Supreme Court website, Vijay had already won the trust vote. The final tally stood at 144 votes in favour of the government, 22 against, while five members abstained. The DMK walked out of the Assembly ahead of the confidence motion, with leader of opposition and DMK MLA Udhyanidhi Stalin announcing that the party would boycott the proceedings. The controversy arose from a Madras High Court order passed on Tuesday restraining Sethupathi from participating in the Assembly over a dispute concerning a postal ballot in the Tiruppattur constituency, where the TVK candidate defeated DMK's KR Periyakaruppan by a single vote. Appearing for Sethupathi, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi assailed the HC order as "blatantly illegal" and submitted before the apex court that the matter required strong judicial correction. "This is one case where strictures are required," Singhvi argued. Questioning the maintainability of the proceedings before the high court, the Supreme Court asked senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Periyakaruppan: "How did you file a writ petition under Article 226?" The bench also sought clarity from the Election Commission of India (ECI), asking: "Who are you supporting?" Singhvi pointed out that even ECI had opposed the maintainability of the writ petition before the high court and argued that the only remedy available after declaration of election results was an election petition under the Representation of the People Act. Defending the high court proceedings, Rohatgi submitted that the dispute arose because two constituencies shared the name Tiruppattur -- one in Sivagangai district and another in Tirupattur district, leading to an alleged mix-up involving a postal ballot. The Supreme Court, however stayed both the operation of the impugned order and further proceedings before the high court....