Madras High Court stays bypoll notification for five Tamil Nadu assembly seats till July 31
text_fields
The Madras High Court on Friday restrained the Election Commission of India (ECI) from issuing any notification for byelections to the Tiruchi (East), Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai and Karur Assembly constituencies until July 31.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan passed the interim order on a public interest litigation filed by Tirunelveli-based advocate K. Venkatachalapathy.
The petitioner argued that the vacancies created by the resignation of the elected members could not be treated as "clear vacancies" under Section 151-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as election petitions challenging the victories in all five constituencies were pending before the High Court.
The court directed all respondents to file comprehensive counter affidavits within three weeks and restrained the ECI from issuing any byelection notification for the constituencies where the returned candidates had resigned until further hearing.
According to the petition, the election petitions seek not only to declare the elections of the returned candidates void but also to declare the respective petitioners as elected. The petitioner contended that holding byelections before these petitions are decided could result in two individuals claiming to represent the same constituency.
The Bench observed that earlier Supreme Court rulings supported the need to distinguish between vacancies where election petitions seeking composite relief are pending and those where no such disputes exist. It said such vacancies could not automatically be treated as clear vacancies for conducting byelections.
Advocate General Vijay Narayan, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretary, argued that some resignations had been accepted before the election petitions were filed and sought time to file a detailed counter affidavit.
Senior counsel G. Masilamani, appearing for Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay questioned the maintainability of the PIL, arguing that no byelection notification had yet been issued and the petition was premature.
Counsel for the ECI submitted that the Commission had not yet received notices in the election petitions and that several petitions were still at the stage of addressing procedural defects.
Rejecting the objection on locus standi, the High Court said matters concerning the democratic process warranted a broader approach. It also observed that premature byelections could lead to unnecessary public expenditure and a constitutional deadlock. The matter has been posted for further hearing on July 31.