CHENNAI: CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Friday (July 10) restrained the Election Commission of India from issuing notifications for bye-elections in the Tiruchy (East), Perundurai, Viralimalai, Karur, and Ambasamudram Assembly constituencies until July 31, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation over pending election petitions against the resigned MLAs.
The first bench, comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, observed that in matters concerning the purity of the democratic process, a narrow interpretation of locus standi cannot be adopted.
The bench held that premature bye-elections would burden the public exchequer and could lead to a constitutional deadlock by resulting in two validly elected representatives for the same constituency.
Tirunelveli-based K Venkatachalapathy has filed the petition before the High Court seeking to restrain the Election Commission from notifying and conducting bye-elections in the Tiruchy (East), Perundurai, Viralimalai, Karur and Ambasamudram constituencies, contending that conducting bye-elections before the disposal of the pending election petitions would render the proceedings infructuous, defeat the statutory rights of the election petitioners under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and frustrate the purpose of adjudicating election disputes.
He sought a declaration that the vacancies cannot be treated as “clear vacancies” under Section 151-A of the Act until the election petitions are finally decided, along with interim and final directions restraining the ECI from proceeding with the bye-elections.
During the hearing, Advocate General Vijay Narayan submitted that a vacancy arises as soon as an MLA’s resignation is accepted. If no election dispute is pending on that date, the Election Commission is required to fill the vacancy within six months. He further contended that a subsequently filed election petition cannot invalidate a vacancy that has already arisen.
Appearing for Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay, senior counsel G Masilamani argued that the petitioner is not a registered elector or voter in any of the six constituencies in question. Being a stranger to the local electorate, he cannot claim any interest or injury, he contended.
The standing counsel for the Election Commission of India pointed out that in several cases, the High Court has not yet issued notice to the respondents.
After hearing the parties, the bench observed that the Supreme Court has held that where an election petition seeks not only to set aside the returned candidate’s election but also to declare another candidate as duly elected, the seat cannot be treated as a “clear vacancy” for holding a bye-election. Until such an election petition is decided, the Election Commission’s obligation to conduct a bye-election remains suspended, it said.
The court further held that the petitioner, being a citizen of India, a registered voter in Tamil Nadu and an officer of the court, has the locus standi to maintain the PIL. It rejected the respondents’ objection that he was not a voter in these constituencies.
The court directed issuance of notice to Chief Minister and the winning candidate from Tiruchy (East), Vijay, ECI, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretary, and MLAs C Vijayabaskar, MR Vijayabhaskar and E Subbaiya, and S JayaKumar. It granted three weeks to all respondents to file their counter-affidavits and adjourned the matter to July 31, 2026.
Till then, the court restrained the Election Commission of India from issuing any notification for bye-elections in the constituencies where the returned candidates had resigned, as stated in the writ petition.