Instant resignation by MLAs mockery of democracy, says Madras High Court

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has refused to stay bye-elections to Madurantakam and Dharapuram assembly constituencies, but observed that the resignation of elected MLAs amounts to an insult to voters and asked why the ECI should not frame guidelines to prevent a “mockery of democracy.”

A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and Krishnanaswamy Govindarajan directed the registry to post the PIL, which sought a stay on the bypolls, along with connected matters before the chief justice bench on September 18.

The court orally asked why the Election Commission of India (ECI) should not examine the issue in detail and frame guidelines under Article 324 of the Constitution to prevent this “mockery of democracy.” The court also observed that the MLAs were elected by voters who placed their trust in them; resigning from their posts amounts to insulting the voters.

During the hearing, Advocate General Vijay Narayan pointed out that similar connected matters had been heard by the first bench headed by Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and that orders had been reserved.

The petitioner’s senior counsel R Singaravelan told the court that six AIADMK MLAs had resigned after this year’s general elections and joined the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). He said two of them, Maragatham Kumaravel and P Sathyabama, have now been named TVK candidates to fill the vacancies caused by their own resignations in the Madurantakam and Dharapuram constituencies, even as the “ink on voters’ fingers” has barely dried. Advocate K Suthan of Saidapet had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Madras High Court, seeking a stay on the bye-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 resigned for political reasons and are causing additional public expenditure.