Madras High Court restrains Election Commission from notifying byelections in five constituencies in Tamil Nadu

The Madras High Court on Friday, July 10, 2026, restrained the Election Commission of India (ECI) from notifying by-elections to Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai and Karur Assembly constituencies till July 31; because although the elected representatives of these constituencies had resigned, their victory had been questioned through election petitions before the court.

Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan passed the interim order following a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli, which alleged that holding by-elections before the filing of election petitions could lead to an abnormal situation of constituencies being represented by two persons if the petitions are allowed.

The interim orders were passed after hearing preliminary submissions made by senior advocate G. Masilamani for Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, Solicitor General Vijay Narayan on behalf of the Legislative Assembly Secretary, advocate VR Shanmuganathan on behalf of the PIL petitioner and ECI counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan. The judges gave the defendants until July 31 to file counter-affidavits to the main lawsuit.

Cannot be considered as ‘vacancy’: petitioner

The PIL petitioner had argued in his affidavit that the ECI could not treat the vacancies arising on account of the five resignations as a ‘clear vacancy’ under Section 151A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, as such vacancies would depend on the outcome of the election petitions. He claimed that holding by-elections in these constituencies would be contrary to three Supreme Court decisions on the issue.

His lawyer, Mr. Shanmuganathan, of the high court Sanjeevayya vs Election Commission of India (1967), Election Commission of India against Telangana Rashtra Samithi (2011) and Pramod Laxman vs Gudadhe and Election Commission of India (2018) stated that if the election petitions for these constituencies are resolved, by-elections cannot be held.

He said that all the five election petitioners who stood in Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai and Karur constituencies in this year’s elections not only challenged the victory of the returning candidates but also sought a consequential prayer to declare these election petitions as the winning candidates from these constituencies.

Therefore, he said, holding by-elections in these districts without submitting election petitions would lead to great confusion due to the election of new representatives. On the other hand, the AG said there should be a distinction between those who resigned before the filing of election petitions and those who resigned after the filing of election petitions.

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

Mr Masilamani, who represents Mr Vijay, said: location stand PIL petitioner to determine what ECI should or should not do. Senior counsel said the PIL petition was premature as the ECI has not taken any decision so far on holding by-elections in the five constituencies in question and no notification has been issued to this effect.

Mr. Rajagopalan, counsel for ECI, told the Board that the commission had no idea about the prayers sought in the five election petitions as it was yet to receive the court notices and the papers were served on it. He wondered how the PIL petitioner was able to access the details of five election petitions which have been enumerated as subject to maintainability by the Supreme Court Registry and the petitioners have not yet been able to cure ministerial defects.

After hearing them all, the Bench of Chief Justices said that there was a narrow and pedantic interpretation on matters touching on the purity of the democratic process. location stand could not be implemented. However, the judges agreed that the A-G’s nuanced arguments regarding the date on which the vacancy arose vis-à-vis the dates on which election petitions were filed required deeper scrutiny.

They decided to pass final orders on the PIL petition after notice was served to all the respondents and counter-affidavits were filed by them.