Stopping Bye-Elections Will Deprive Lakhs Of People From Having Democratically Elected MLAs: CM Vijay To Madras High Court

The Chief Minister made the submissions by way of a counter affidavit in a plea seeking to declare that vacancies in Trichy (East), Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai & Karur assembly constituencies did not constitute “clear vacancies” or available vacancies for the purpose of holding bye-elections under Section 151-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in view of pending election petitions.

It may be noted that the vacancy in Trichy (East) constituency arose following the resignation of Chief Minister Joseph Vijay, after he won from both Trichy (East) and Perambur constituency.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan had, on July 10, restrained the ECI from conducting bye-elections in the Trichy (East), Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai & Karur assembly constituencies till July 31st. This interim order was later extended till September 8^th.

Meanwhile, the Election Commission of India had informed the High Court that it was not intending to conduct bye-elections in the five constituencies till the election petitions concerning the constituencies were decided by the court.

Now, the Chief Minister, who is also a respondent in the case, has filed a counter affidavit.

The CM submitted that there was no public interest involved in the case and the same was filed with ulterior motive. He submitted that the petitioner was only seeking to protect the interest of one individual, the election petitioner, in the event they were declared as the returned candidate. He submitted that stopping the elections, on the other hand, would affect several lakhs of people.

“The writ petitioner is only seeking to protect the interests of the election petitioner, in the event of they are succeeding to get the relief specified in section 84, such a relief will in fact protect the interest of one individual who could not get elected. But the stoppage of bye-election will deprive the several lakhs of people in these constituencies from having democratically elected MLAs to represent their interest, cause and grievance that too for an indefinite period of time. Hence, prima-facie the writ petition is against the larger public interest. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine,” the counter states.

Vijay submitted that that public interest litigation was a discretionary remedy and the same could not be granted to the disadvantage and deprivation of democratically elected representatives to several lakhs of people, to protect the interest of one person's alleged contingent benefit.

Vijay also submitted that the writ petitioner did not have the locus standi to seek the relief as claimed. He added that if at all anyone would have a right to seek a relief of postponing the bye-election, it would be the election petitioner due to the alleged possibility of two elected candidate to one seat, if the election petition was successful. The CM thus accused the petitioner of waging a proxy war.

Vijay said that after winning from both Perambur and Thiruchirappalli East constituency, he was statutorily required to resign from one constituency and considering the same, he resigned from Thiruchirappalli constituency. He submitted that compliance with law cannot be taken as a ground to stop the bye-election to the said constituency.

Case Title: Venkatachalapathy v Election Commission of India

Case No: WP No 27064 of 2026