Madras High Court: Can't take legislative role to punish resigning MLAs

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking a five-year ban on legislators who voluntarily resign from contesting future elections, holding that such a law can be made only by the Legislature.

The first bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that making laws is the function of the Legislature and not the courts. While courts can fill limited gaps to protect constitutional rights, they cannot direct the Legislature to enact a particular law or create a new statutory framework.

The court said the reliefs sought would create two new features of electoral law that do not exist under the Constitution or the Representation of the People Act, 1951 — a security deposit linked to the actual public expenditure incurred on a bye-election and a five-year disqualification from contesting elections.

The court noted that even the petitioner had admitted in his affidavit that the proposed mechanism was not presently part of Indian electoral law. It said the plea sought the creation of a new punitive and financial regime, which was a matter of legislative policy and not judicial direction.

The court further held that the Election Commission of India had no independent power under Article 324 or otherwise to add such conditions to the existing disqualifications, and that the court could not confer such power on the poll panel through a writ of mandamus.

The bench also observed that the plea was directed against six named individuals based on the timing of their resignations. Imposing such conditions only on them would run contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. The right to resign from a legislative seat cannot be burdened by extra-statutory conditions imposed by a judicial order.

Holding that it could not convert an executive or legislative option into a judicial command, the court dismissed the writ petition.

Advocate K Suthan of Saidapet had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Madras High Court, seeking a stay on the by-elections to the Madurantakam and Dharapuram Assembly constituencies.

In his petition, Suthan contended that when an elected representative resigns shortly after an election for personal or political reasons, a statutory restriction should be considered to prevent the person from contesting elections to Parliament or a State Legislative Assembly for the next five years.

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 Kumaravel and Sathyabama should not be allowed to contest as they had resigned for political reasons and were causing additional public expenditure.