On the other hand, the A-G stated, there need to be a difference in between those who had actually resigned prior to the filing of the election petitions and those who had actually resigned after the filing of the election petitions.|Image Credit: PICHUMANI K
The Madras High Court on Friday(July 10, 2026 )limited the Election Commission of India(ECI )from alerting byelections to Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai, and Karur Assembly constituencies till July 31 since, though the chosen agents of these constituencies had actually resigned, their triumphes had actually been challenged by method of election petitions before the court.
Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan passed the interim order following a public interest lawsuits (PIL) petition submitted by K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli who competed that conduct of byelection before the disposal of election petitions might cause an anomalous scenario of the constituencies being represented by 2 people, if the petitions get permitted.
The interim orders were passed after hearing the initial submissions made by senior counsel G Masilamani for Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay, Advocate General Vijay Narayan for the Legislative Assembly Secretary, supporter V R Shanmuganathan for the PIL petitioner, and ECI counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan. The judges approved the participants time till July 31 for submitting their counter affidavits to the primary case.
Can not be dealt with as ‘clear job’: petitioner
In his affidavit, the PIL petitioner had actually competed that the ECI might not deal with the jobs that had actually occurred due to the 5 resignations as a ‘clear job’ under Section 151A of the Representation of individuals Act, 1951, considering that such jobs would go through the outcome of the election petitions. He declared that conduct of byelection to these constituencies would run contrary to 3 Supreme Court choices on the matter.
His counsel Shanmuganathan argued that the leading court had in Sanjeevayya versus Election Commission of India (1967 ), Election Commission of India versus Telangana Rashtra Samithi (2011 ), and Pramod Laxman Gudadhe verus Election Commission of India (2018) had actually held that byelections might not be performed if election petitions associated with those constituencies were pending adjudication.
Substantial prayer
He stated, all 5 election petitioners who were the prospects in Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai, and Karur constituencies in the elections held this year had not just challenged the triumph of the returned prospects however likewise looked for a substantial prayer to state those election petitioners as the winning prospects from those constituencies.
Carrying out byelections to those constituencies even before the disposal of the election petitions, would trigger excellent confusion due to the election of the brand-new agents, he stated. On the other hand, the A-G stated, there should be a difference in between those who had actually resigned prior to the filing of the election petitions and those who had actually resigned after the filing of the election petitions.
He stated, the Chief Minister had actually resigned from Tiruchi (East) Assembly seat on May 10 itself however his competing prospect S Inigo Irudayaraj had actually submitted the election petition much later on. Explaining that a couple of others, too, had actually resigned much before the filing of the election petitions challenging their success, the A-G looked for time to submit a comprehensive counter affidavit to the PIL plea.
On his part, Masilamani, representing. Vijay, questioned the locus standi of the PIL petitioner to determine what the ECI should do or not do. The senior counsel stated, the PIL petition was early considering that the ECI had actually not taken any choice up until now on the concern of performing byelection to the 5 constituencies in concern, and no notice to that impact had actually been released.
ECI counsel Rajagopalan informed the Bench that the commission had no hint about the prayers looked for in the 5 election petitions given that it was yet to get court notifications and served with the documents. He questioned how the PIL petitioner accessed to the information of the 5 election petitions when they had actually been numbered by the High Court Registry topic to maintainability, and the petitioners were yet to treat ministerial problems.
After hearing all of them, the Chief Justice’s Bench stated, in matters discussing the pureness of the democratic procedure, a narrow and pedantic analysis of locus standi might not be used. The judges, nevertheless, concurred that the A-G’s nuanced arguments worrying the date on which the job had actually developed compared to the dates on which the election petitions had actually been submitted, needed a much deeper evaluation
They chose to pass last orders on the PIL petition after issuance of notification to all the participants and filing of counter affidavits by them.
Released on July 10, 2026
