Madras High Court dismisses PIL which said resigning MLA should pay bye-election expenses

The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that had urged it to direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) to introduce a mechanism requiring legislators who voluntarily resign from their seats to bear the expenses of resulting by-elections [Suthan Vs Union of India].

The petitioner had also called for a five-year ban on such resigning legislators from contesting in elections State Assembly or Parliament elections.

A Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, however, observed that these are not domains where the judiciary should intervene.

"We are being asked to design a punitive and financial regime that would operate as a fresh disqualification under the Constitution of India and would curtail the statutory right to contest an election. In our considered opinion, the same is a matter of legislative policy, not of judicial direction," it said.

In this regard, the Court noted that neither the Constitution of India nor the Representation of the People Act, 1951, presently imposes such punitive consequences on legislators who resign.

“The right to resign a legislative seat is itself a facet of the constitutional scheme governing membership of a House, and cannot be burdened with extra-statutory conditions by judicial order, however sound the underlying concern may be," it held.

The PIL before the Court was filed by advocate K Suthan after six AIADMK MLAs elected in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections resigned from their seats shortly after the results. They resigned after defying the AIADMK whip to express support for the TVK-led State government on the floor of the Tamil Nadu Assembly during a confidence vote held in May. After their resignations, they also joined the TVK party.

Their resignations, meanwhile, necessitated the conduct of by-elections in the six constituencies they had earlier won elections from.

The petitioner before the High Court sought the creation of an “Election Expenditure Security” mechanism, under which an MLA who prematurely resigns and subsequently wishes to contest the resulting by-election would first have to deposit an amount equal to the public money spent on conducting that by-election. He argued that taxpayers should not be required to pay twice for an election to the same seat merely because its representative chose to resign.

The petitioner also sought a five-year bar on such legislators contesting elections to Parliament or State legislatures.

The High Court, however, noted that the penalties proposed by the petitioner for such legislators were not part of the current election law.

Courts can issue directions to fill a vacuum where an existing constitutional or statutory right needs to be implemented, the Bench explained. They cannot, however, create an entirely new liability or disqualification, the Court held.

The Court also rejected the argument that the ECI could introduce such conditions by exercising its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution.

It held that the Election Commission has no independent power to add to the existing grounds of electoral disqualification. If the Commission itself lacks such power, a court cannot confer it through a writ of mandamus, the Bench said.

The High Court also noted that the Election Commission had itself proposed in 2004 that candidates who win from two constituencies and vacate one should deposit the cost of the consequent bye-election. However, Parliament has not enacted the amendments required to implement that proposal.

The Court added this reinforced the conclusion that the issues raised by the petitioner was one of legislative policy, and not an area where the judiciary can passed orders.

“This Court cannot convert an executive or legislative option into a judicial command," it said.

The petition was consequently dismissed.

Senior Advocate R Singgaravelan appeared for the petitioner.

Central Government Standing Counsel K Thirukkumaran represented the Union government.

Advocate Niranjan Rajagopalan appeared for the Election Commission of India and the Tamil Nadu Chief Electoral Officer.

Advocate General Vijay Narayan, assisted by Special Government Pleader J Lenin, represented the Tamil Nadu government authorities.

[Read Judgment]