Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan said the court cannot issue such a direction from the bench.
The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking disposal of election petitions challenging the victory of MPs and members of the legislature within six months from the date of filing.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan said that no such direction sought by the PIL petitioner, Tirunelveli-based advocate K. Venkatachalapathy, could be issued by the court.
As senior counsel Ravi Prakash argued the case on behalf of the petitioner, the chief justice wondered how his bench could issue a direction to other High Court judges. “What direction do you want us to give and to whom should it be given?” the counselor asked.
In an affidavit filed through his counsel on record VR Shanmuganathan, the petitioner said the Representation of the People Act, 1951 empowers only the State High Court to hear election petitions and requires the Chief Justice to assign such petitions to any of the single judges of the court.
Furthermore, Section 86(7) of the Act stipulates that every election petition is to be heard as quickly as possible and every effort must be made to conclude the main trial within six months of the date on which the election petition was submitted to the High Court for hearing.
However, the process in most electoral proposals ends only at the end of the term of office of the legislator in question, and some of them are not decided even after the term of office has expired, the petitioner lamented. He said that even the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of such delay.
Passing the orders in Mohammed Akbar versus Ashok Sahu in 2015, the apex court said, “Membership in legislative bodies is a sacred responsibility. The retention of any member in such bodies who has secured his election to such body by legally impermissible means, even for one day, is highly undesirable.”
The Supreme Court also wrote: “We regret to note that the resolution of election disputes in this country always takes an unacceptably long time in most cases. It is very rare that an election dispute is resolved during the term of office of the declared candidate, making the trial process a travesty of justice.”
Since it was desirable to have reserved benches in each high court only for hearing election petitions, the high court said, judges dealing with election petitions must not be encumbered with any additional work until such petitions are disposed of.
Despite the judgment, the delay continues and election petitions are not decided within six months, complained the petitioner. He sought a direction to the Centre, the Election Commission of India and the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to ensure strict adherence to the mandate under Section 86(7).
On the other hand, High Court Standing Counsel B. Vijay, representing the Chief Secretary, informed the First Bench that the Supreme Court had on 12 August 2024 dismissed a case brought before it by another person with the same prayer and therefore it need not entertain this case also.
Published – 23 Oct 2025 19:53 IST
