The Madras High Court has barred the Election Commission from announcing by-elections in five constituencies in Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay contested both the Perambur and Tiruchi East Assembly constituencies. He vacated the last chair. File | Photo credit: R. Ragu

The Madras High Court on Friday (July 10, 2026) barred the Election Commission of India (ECI) from announcing elections to Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai and Karur Assembly constituencies till July 31 as though the elected representatives of these constituencies were challenged before the court, their election petitions vi resigned.

Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan passed the interim order on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli, who argued that holding by-elections before disposal of the by-election petitions could lead to an anomalous situation of constituencies if the petitions were represented by two individuals.

The preliminary orders were passed after hearing preliminary submissions made by senior counsel G. Masilamani for Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, advocate general Vijay Narayan for the Legislative Assembly secretary, advocate VR Shanmuganathan for the PIL petitioners and ECI counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan. The judges gave the respondents until July 31 to file counter-affidavits in the main case.

It cannot be considered a “clear vacancy”: the petitioner

In his affidavit, the PIL petitioner contended that the ECI cannot treat the vacancies arising on account of the five resignations as “clear vacancy” under Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as such vacancies will be subject to the outcome of election petitions. He argued that the conduct of by-elections to these constituencies would be contrary to three decisions of the Supreme Court on the matter.

His counsel Mr. Shanmuganathan argued that the Supreme Court in Sanjeevayya v. Election Commission of India (1967), Election Commission of India v. Telangana Rashtra Samithi (2011) and Pramod Laxman Gudadhe verus Election Commission of India (2018) had held that by-elections cannot be held when the pending election petitions relate to bankruptcy petitions.

He said that all the five election petitioners who were candidates in Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai and Karur constituencies in the elections held this year not only challenged the victory of the returned candidates but also sought a subsequent prayer to declare these election petitioners as the winning candidates from those constituencies.

According to him, the holding of by-elections in these constituencies even before the election petitions are processed would cause a lot of confusion due to the election of new representatives. On the other hand, a distinction must be made between those who resigned before the election petitions were filed and those who resigned after filing, according to the AG.

He said the Chief Minister resigned from the Tiruchi (East) Assembly seat on May 10 itself, but his rival candidate S. Inigo Irudayaraj filed the election petition much later. Pointing out that several others had also resigned much before the election petitions challenging their victory were filed, the AG sought time to file a detailed counter-affidavit to the PIL.

Mr. Masilamani, representing Mr. Vijay, on his part questioned the standing of the PIL petitioner to dictate what the ECI must do or not do. The Solicitor General said that the PIL petition was premature as the ECI has not yet taken any decision on the issue of holding by-elections in the five constituencies concerned and no notification to that effect has been issued.

ECI counsel Mr. Rajagopalan told the Bench that the commission had no idea about the prayers sought in the five election petitions as it was yet to receive the court notice and served with the papers. He wondered how the PIL petitioner got the details of the five election petitions when they were numbered by the Supreme Court register subject to maintenance and the petitioners were yet to address the ministerial deficiencies.

After hearing all of them, the Supreme Court said that a narrow and pedantic interpretation of standing cannot be applied in matters affecting the purity of the democratic process. However, the judges agreed that the AG’s differing arguments regarding the date the seat became vacant compared to the dates the election petitions were filed required further scrutiny.

They decided to pass final orders on the PIL petition after all the respondents were given notice and their counter affidavits.

Published – 10 Jul 2026 17:17 IST