Madras High Court imposes ₹1 lakh costs on lawyer who sought to recover election expenses from resigned MLAs

Madras High Court. File | Photo credit: K. Picumani

The Madras High Court on Tuesday (September 29, 2026) imposed a cost of ₹1,000 on a lawyer for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to order six resigned MLAs in Tamil Nadu to bear the cost of by-elections and also restrain them from contesting any elections during the current term of the Legislative Assembly.

The High Court First Division Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed a PIL petition filed by Chennai lawyer S. Kasi Ramalingam with costs, after finding that the case appeared to be made for publication. The judges said they had just last week dismissed on merits a similar case filed by advocate K. Suthan, also from Chennai.

In that order, the Division Bench held that it was incumbent on Parliament to legislate against the practice of legislators resigning their posts only to change political allegiance and immediately contest again from the same constituency in the resulting elections conducted at state expense. He emphasized that the current legal framework does not impose any restrictions on such practice.

“The right to resign a legislative seat is itself part of the constitutional scheme governing membership of the House and cannot be encumbered by extra-statutory terms by injunction, however sound the underlying apprehensions may be… this Court cannot convert an executive or legislative option into an injunction,” the Bench wrote in its September 24, 2026 verdict.

Previous PIL

Mr. Suthan also sought a direction to the Election Commission of India to recover poll expenses from the resigned legislators and disqualify the resigners from contesting elections for a period of five years. However, the Division Bench held that no such direction could be issued unless the ECI was legally empowered to do any of these acts.

“The Election Commission has no independent power, whether under Article 324 of the Constitution or otherwise, to add conditions/barification to the existing list of disqualifications; and if the Commission itself has no such power, this Court cannot grant it such power by writ of mandamus,” the judgment said.

Stating that this case of Mr. Ramalingam was filed on the same grounds against six individuals – C. Vijayabaskar (Viralimalai), MR Vijayabhaskar (Karur), Esakki Subaya (Ambasamudram), P. Sathyabama (Dharapuram), K. Maragatham Kumaravel (Maduraku) and Jaerantayam, who had resigned as MLAs, the judges dismissed the suit with costs.

Published – 29 Sep 2026 13:19 IST