Madras HC halts ECI from notifying by-polls to five Tamil Nadu Assembly seats

The Madras High Court on Friday temporarily restrained the Election Commission of India (ECI) from notifying bye-elections to five Tamil Nadu Assembly constituencies where the elected candidates resigned after the May 2026 Assembly elections [K Venkatachalapathy v. Election Commission of India and Others]

A Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan passed the interim order on a petition concerning vacancies in the constituencies of Tiruchirappalli East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai and Karur.

The petitioner has pointed out that there are election petitions challenging the poll results from these five constituencies pending before the High Court.

The Court, in turn, noted that a legislator’s resignation may not automatically make a seat available for a bye-election in such a scenario, where an election petition is pending and seeks a declaration that another candidate was duly elected.

The Court proceeded to bar the ECI from notifying bypolls to the five constituencies till July 31, when the plea will be heard next.

"Post the matter on 31.7.2026. Till then the first respondent/ Election Commission of India is restrained from issuing any notification for bye-election in respect of the constituencies, where the returned candidates resigned, as asserted in the writ," the Court said.

The order was passed on a petition filed by advocate and registered voter K Venkatachalapathy.

He argued that election petitions challenging the results in the five constituencies not only seek to have the elections of the returned candidates declared void, but also have others declared duly elected.

As such, holding bye-elections before deciding the election petitions could result in two persons simultaneously claiming to represent the same constituency.

The Court noted that similar issues were dealt with in the Supreme Court’s decisions in D Sanjeevayya v. Election Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, ECI v. Telangana Rashtra Samithi and Pramod Laxman Gudadhe v. ECI.

These decisions distinguished between vacancies where election petitions are pending and vacancies where there are no such disputes. In the former category (where election disputes are pending), the ECI’s obligation to conduct a bye-election within six months may remain suspended.

"Prima facie, the observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions indicate that if an election petition seeks the composite relief of declaring the petitioner as duly elected under Section 84 of the RP Act, the vacancy cannot be treated as a 'clear vacancy' available for a bye-election," the High Court observed.

By its order passed today, the Court also rejected an objection that the petitioner lacked standing because he was not a voter in any of the five constituencies where the vacancies had arisen.

“The premature holding of bye-elections not only inflicts an enormous drain on the public exchequer funded by taxpayers, but also risks a severe constitutional deadlock by potentially yielding two validly elected representatives for a single constituency,” the Court explained.

The Court went on to observe that the dates on which the vacancies arose, compared with the dates on which the election petitions were filed, required deeper examination. The ECI had also argued that some petitions had not yet cleared scrutiny on maintainability and that notice had not been ordered in them.

The Court sought comprehensive counter-affidavits from all respondents within three weeks and listed the matter for further hearing on July 31.

Until then, the ECI has been restrained from issuing bye-election notifications for the five constituencies.

Advocate VR Shanmuganathan appeared for the petitioner

Standing Counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan along with Advocate Tarun Rao represented the ECI.

Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, assisted by Senior Panel Counsel V Venkatesan, appeared for the Union government

Advocate General Vijay Narayan, assisted by Government Advocate Akash, represented the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat

Senior Advocate G Masilamani, instructed by Advocate Ramya MB, appeared for another respondent.

[Read Order]