The Madras High Court on Friday (July 10, 2026) restrained the Election Commission of India (ECI) from notifying byelections to Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai, and Karur Assembly constituencies until July 31, 2026, because, though the elected representatives of these constituencies had resigned, their victories had been challenged by way of election petitions before the court.
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan passed the interim order following a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli who contended that conduct of byelection before the disposal of election petitions could lead to an anomalous situation of the constituencies being represented by two individuals, if the petitions get allowed.
The interim orders were passed after hearing the preliminary submissions made by senior counsel G. Masilamani for Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, Advocate General Vijay Narayan for the Legislative Assembly Secretary, advocate V.R. Shanmuganathan for the PIL petitioner, and ECI counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan. The judges granted the respondents time till July 31, 2026, for filing their counter affidavits to the main case.
In his affidavit, the PIL petitioner had contended that the ECI could not treat the vacancies that had arisen due to the five resignations as a ‘clear vacancy’ under Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, since such vacancies would be subject to the result of the election petitions. He claimed that conduct of byelection to these constituencies would run contrary to three Supreme Court decisions on the matter.
His counsel Mr. Shanmuganathan argued that the top court had in Sanjeevayya versus Election Commission of India (1967), Election Commission of India versus Telangana Rashtra Samithi (2011), and Pramod Laxman Gudadhe verus Election Commission of India (2018) had held that byelections could not be conducted if election petitions related to those constituencies were pending adjudication.
He said, all five election petitioners who were the candidates in Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai, and Karur constituencies in the elections held this year had not only challenged the victory of the returned candidates but also sought a consequential prayer to declare those election petitioners as the winning candidates from those constituencies.
Therefore, conducting byelections to those constituencies even before the disposal of the election petitions, would cause great confusion due to the election of the new representatives, he said. On the other hand, the A-G said, there must be a distinction between those who had resigned prior to the filing of the election petitions and those who had resigned after the filing.
He said, the Chief Minister had resigned from Tiruchi (East) Assembly seat on May 10, 2026, itself but his rival candidate S. Inigo Irudayaraj had filed the election petition much later. Pointing out that a few others, too, had resigned much before the filing of the election petitions challenging their victory, the A-G sought time to file a detailed counter affidavit to the PIL plea.
On his part, Mr. Masilamani, representing Mr. Vijay, questioned the locus standi of the PIL petitioner to dictate what the ECI must do or not do. The senior counsel said, the PIL petition was premature since the ECI had not taken any decision so far on the issue of conducting byelection to the five constituencies in question, and no notification to that effect had been issued.
ECI counsel Mr. Rajagopalan told the Bench that the commission had no clue about the prayers sought in the five election petitions since it was yet to receive court notices and served with the papers. He wondered how the PIL petitioner gained access to the details of the five election petitions when they had been numbered by the High Court Registry subject to maintainability, and the petitioners were yet to cure ministerial defects.
After hearing all of them, the Chief Justice’s Bench said, in matters touching upon the purity of the democratic process, a narrow and pedantic interpretation of locus standi could not be applied. The judges, however, agreed that the A-G’s nuanced arguments concerning the date on which the vacancy had arisen compared to the dates on which the election petitions had been filed, required a deeper examination
They decided to pass final orders on the PIL petition after issuance of notice to all the respondents and filing of counter affidavits by them.
Published – July 10, 2026 05:17 pm IST
