The Madras High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) on Thursday that aimed to compel the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu to establish a system for recovering by-election costs from MLAs who resign shortly after winning their seats. The PIL also sought to impose a five-year ban on these MLAs from contesting future 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.
Supreme Court Clarifies Electoral Bonds Ruling
The Supreme Court recently clarified its 2024 judgment regarding electoral bonds, emphasizing that the ruling was focused on voters’ right to know the sources of political-party funding. The court stated that this decision does not establish grounds for imposing new disqualifications or requiring security deposits from legislators who resign and wish to run for office again.
The court asserted, “It is a matter of legislative policy, not of judicial direction,” highlighting the distinction between judicial interpretation and legislative authority in electoral matters.
