The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, to create a mechanism to recover the cost of by-elections from MLAs who voluntarily resign from their seats soon after winning and to impose a five-year bar on them contesting subsequent elections.
A bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and justice G Arul Murugan said the reliefs sought would require creating new features of electoral law and could not be introduced through a judicial order. “Relief cannot be granted. It is for the legislature to legislate. He also pointed out that the mechanism he sought was “presently not incorporated into Indian electoral law.
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s 2002 judgment, which recognised the EC’s power under Article 324 to issue directions where the law was silent and the Commission had the constitutional or statutory power to act. The court noted that neither measure had any basis in the Constitution or the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It said the EC did not have an independent power under Article 324 to add new conditions or disqualifications for contesting elections.
We cannot legislate,” the court said while dismissing the PIL filed by a lawyer, K Suthan. “In the case at hand, what is sought is not disclosure of an existing fact, but the creation of an entirely new disqualification, viz., a bar on contesting elections for five years, and a forfeitable financial deposit calculated on a case-by-case basis with reference to public expenditure,” the bench said.
He had earlier approached the EC and other authorities with representations seeking the proposed measures.
The bench further distinguished the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment on electoral bonds, saying that case concerned voters’ right to know the source of political-party funding and did not provide a basis for creating a new disqualification or security deposit for legislators who resign and seek to contest again.
“It is a matter of legislative policy, not of judicial direction,” the bench said.
