CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has questioned whether it can direct recovery of election expenses from MLAs who resign and contest by-elections in the absence of a statutory provision, and deferred its order on the PIL.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan questioned how the court could interfere in an issue that requires a change in election laws by the Parliament.
Advocate K Suthan of Saidapet had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Madras High Court, seeking a stay on the bypolls to the Madurantakam and Dharapuram Assembly constituencies.
In his petition, Suthan contended that a statutory restriction should be considered to prevent the person from contesting elections to the Parliament or a State Legislative Assembly for the next five years when an elected representative resigns shortly after an election for personal or political reasons.
He submitted that public money is spent on conducting elections and that its economical and responsible use is a matter of public interest. He also argued that the electorate's mandate cannot be treated as a personal political asset that can be abandoned shortly after an election without considering the consequences for voters and the public exchequer.
The petitioner contended that TVK candidates Maragatham Kumaravel and Sathyabama should not be allowed to contest, as they resigned for political reasons and are causing additional public expenditure.
The court questioned whether it could bring in a legal amendment in the absence of any law to recover election expenses from MLAs who resign or bar them from contesting elections. The judges observed that the court did not have the legislative power to enact such a law, as only Parliament could do so, and that the court could only examine whether such a law was valid.
During the hearing, the petitioner's senior counsel, R Singaravelan, submitted that if an MLA resigns and stays at home, no questions would be raised. However, when they resign to contest elections again, the Election Commission should frame rules taking this into consideration.
Election Commission of India counsel Niranajan Rajagopalan submitted that after declaring election results, the Commission has no role to play and that the petition was not maintainable. He also submitted that there was no provision to recover by-election expenses from MLAs who have resigned.
The judges further observed that the court could not direct the government to enact a law, order the recovery of previous election expenses from MLAs contesting again, or bar them from contesting elections for a specified period. Thereafter, the bench reserved its orders.