Supreme Court Seeks Responses on Plea to Recover Bypoll Costs from MLAs Who Resign

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana sought responses from the Union government, the Election Commission of India (ECI), the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu and six former MLAs from the state, among others.

The petition, filed by advocate K. Suthan, challenges a Madras High Court judgment dismissing his public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to hold legislators financially accountable when their resignations trigger by-elections at public expense.

Plea Seeks Financial Security and Five-Year Disqualification

The petitioner has sought directions for introducing an “Election Expenditure Security” mechanism under which legislators resigning without a legally recognised compelling reason would be required to deposit an amount equivalent to the cost of the resulting by-election before contesting it again.

The plea also seeks a five-year disqualification from contesting elections for legislators who resign under the circumstances described in the petition.

According to the petitioner, six AIADMK legislators resigned from their Tamil Nadu Assembly seats within weeks of the Assembly election results being declared on May 4 and subsequently joined the ruling party.

The petition states that disqualification proceedings had been initiated against some of these legislators over allegations that they voted against their party whip during a confidence motion.

It alleges that the resignations allowed the legislators to avoid the pending proceedings and seek re-election under a different political banner, while the resulting by-elections imposed an avoidable financial burden on the public exchequer.

These claims form part of the petitioner’s arguments and have not been established as findings by the Supreme Court.

Petitioner Cites Electoral Reform Proposals

The plea also refers to electoral reform proposals made by the Election Commission in 2004, which, according to the petitioner, recommended that candidates whose resignations necessitate by-elections should bear the associated expenses.

The petitioner contends that the recommendation has not been implemented and argues that a formal mechanism is needed to prevent public funds from being spent on by-elections triggered by voluntary resignations.

Madras High Court Had Rejected the Proposed Measures

Suthan approached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court declined to grant the reliefs sought in his PIL.

In its September 24 judgment, the High Court observed that the proposed financial security requirement and five-year disqualification would introduce new substantive provisions into electoral law.

The High Court held that creating such a financial and punitive framework was a matter of legislative policy rather than one that could be introduced through judicial directions.

“The right to resign from a legislative seat is itself a facet of the constitutional scheme governing membership of a House and cannot be burdened with extra-statutory conditions by judicial order,” the High Court had observed.

With the Supreme Court now seeking responses from the authorities and former legislators named in the petition, the matter will examine the legal questions raised by the proposed recovery of by-election expenses and additional restrictions on legislators who resign.