6 hrs ago
Madras High Court Rejects Plea to Restrict Resigned MLAs
An advocate named Sudhan asked the Madras High Court to punish MLAs who resign for political reasons.
He said resignations can force voters to take part in another election.
He wanted former MLAs to pay for the bypoll and be barred from elections for five years.
He also asked the court to stop two bypolls temporarily.
The Election Commission said it was not responsible for an MLA’s decision to resign.
The court considered whether judges could create new election rules.
It decided that only lawmakers can make these changes through legislation.
The court therefore rejected the petition.
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking penalties and a five-year election ban for MLAs who resign for political reasons.
Petitioner Sudhan argued that such resignations disregard voters’ mandates and create the cost of additional bypolls.
He asked former MLAs to deposit bypoll expenses and sought restrictions on their contesting elections for five years.
The petition also sought a halt to bypolls in the Madurantakam and Dharapuram constituencies.
The court said the proposed changes require legislation and cannot be introduced through a judicial order.
- Who
- Advocate Sudhan filed the petition; the Madras High Court heard it, while the Election Commission opposed it.
- What
- The court dismissed a plea seeking bypoll-cost payments and a five-year election ban for MLAs who resign for political reasons.
- Where
- The case was heard by the Madras High Court in Chennai.
- When
- The ruling was issued after the petition was heard; the article does not provide a specific date.
- Why
- The court held that the requested election-law changes must be made by Parliament or a legislature, not imposed through a court order.
Petitioner’s Argument
Court and Election Commission’s Position
Responsibility for bypoll costs
Petitioner’s Argument
MLAs who resign soon after winning should bear the expense of the resulting bypoll because their actions impose costs on the public.
Court and Election Commission’s Position
The Election Commission said it has no role in an elected legislator’s decision to resign, while the court said any new requirement must come through legislation.
Five-year election ban
Petitioner’s Argument
Legislators who resign for political reasons should be prevented from contesting elections for five years.
Court and Election Commission’s Position
The court held that such a disqualification would require lawmakers to amend the law and could not be created by judges.
Judicial directions without legislation
Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner argued that the court could issue directions even without an existing statutory provision.
Court and Election Commission’s Position
The judges concluded that the requested changes could not be introduced through a court order.
Key facts
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Petitioner
- Sudhan, an advocate from Saidapet in Chennai
- Requested penalty
- Former MLAs would deposit the cost of a resulting bypoll
- Requested disqualification
- A five-year ban on contesting elections for legislators who resign for political reasons
- Affected constituencies
- Madurantakam and Dharapuram
- Bench
- Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan
- Election Commission position
- It said it had no role in a legislator’s decision to resign and that the petition was not fit for consideration.









