Madras High Court Rejects PIL on Election Expenses for Resigning MLAs
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought to compel the Election Commission of India (ECI) to establish a system where legislators who resign voluntarily would be responsible for the costs of any subsequent by-elections. The petitioner also proposed a five-year ban on such legislators from seeking re-election to the State Assembly or Parliament. The case, Suthan Vs Union of India, was brought before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan.
The Bench ruled that this issue falls outside the judiciary’s purview. “We are being asked to create a punitive and financial regime that would function as a new disqualification under the Constitution of India, thereby limiting the statutory right to contest elections. In our view, this is a matter of legislative policy, not something for judicial intervention,” the court stated.
Legislative Policy vs Judicial Intervention
The Court highlighted that neither the Indian Constitution nor the Representation of the People Act, 1951, currently imposes such penalties on legislators who resign. “The right to resign from a legislative position is part of the constitutional framework governing membership in a legislative body and cannot be burdened with extra-statutory conditions by judicial order, regardless of the underlying concern,” it emphasized.
The PIL was initiated by advocate K Suthan following the resignation of six AIADMK MLAs elected in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. These MLAs resigned after defying the AIADMK whip to support the TVK-led State government during a confidence vote. Their resignations led to the necessity of conducting by-elections in their constituencies. The petitioner argued for an “Election Expenditure Security” mechanism, which would require MLAs who resign and wish to contest in the ensuing by-election to deposit an amount equivalent to the public funds expended on the by-election. He argued that taxpayers should not bear the cost twice due to a representative’s decision to resign.
Court’s Ruling and Observations
The High Court noted that the penalties suggested by the petitioner are not recognized under current election laws. The Bench clarified that while courts can issue directions to fill gaps where existing constitutional or statutory rights need implementation, they cannot create new liabilities or disqualifications. The Court also dismissed the notion that the ECI could impose such conditions using its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution, stating that the Commission lacks independent power to add to existing electoral disqualification grounds. Thus, a court cannot establish such a power through a writ of mandamus.
Additionally, the Court remarked on a previous proposal by the Election Commission in 2004, suggesting candidates who vacate one of two won constituencies should pay for the resultant by-election. The lack of legislative action on this proposal further supports the Court’s conclusion that this is a matter for legislative policy, not judicial mandate. “The Court cannot transform an executive or legislative choice into a judicial directive,” the Bench concluded.
The petition was ultimately dismissed. Senior Advocate R Singgaravelan represented the petitioner, while 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, and Advocate General Vijay Narayan, aided by Special Government Pleader J Lenin, represented the Tamil Nadu government authorities.
