Madras High Court Restrains ECI From Conducting Bye-Election In Five Constituencies, Including Seat Vacated By CM Joseph Vijay

The Madras High Court has restrained the Election Commission of India (ECI) from notifying bye-elections in Trichy (East), Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai & Karur assembly constituencies till July 31st 

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan passed the interim orders on a plea filed by Venkatachalapathy, seeking to declare the vacancies in these constituencies as not “clear vacancies” since election petitions concerning these constituencies were pending before the court. 

“Post the matter on 31.7.2026. Till then the first respondent/Election Commission of India is restrained from issuing any notification for bye-election in respect of the constituencies, where the returned candidates resigned, as asserted in the writ petition,” the court said on Friday. 

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 court has issued notices on pleas challenging the CM's victory from both constituencies. 

Venkatachalapathy had filed the plea to declare that the vacancies 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. 

He informed the court that after the general election for the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly was over, several candidates who won had submitted their resignation which was accepted by the Speaker. However, various election petitions have been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the very victory of the candidates and to declare another candidates as the returned candidate. 

He argued that if the bye-elections are conducted and ultimately the petitioners succeed in their election petitions by proving corrupt practices, it would lead to an impossible situation where there would be two candidates representing the same constituency simultaneously, one via the General Election and another via the bye-election. He argued that the Parliament could never have intended such an anomalous and unworkable scenario.

The petitioner thus argued that the Election Commission should suspend taking action under Section 150 of the RP Act until the outcome of the election petition is known.

The advocate general, on the other hand argued that a vacancy arises upon acceptance of resignation by the Speaker and in at least three of the cases, there was no election petition pending when the Speaker accepted the resignation. The AG argued that subsequent filing of an election petition cannot retroactively invalidate a clear vacancy that had already arisen.

The respondents also questioned the locus of the petitioner, arguing that he was not a registered voter in any of the constituency. 

The court noted that as per the observations of the Supreme Court, if an election petition seeks the composite relief of declaring the petitioner as duly elected under Section 84 of the RP Act, the vacancy cannot be treated as a "clear vacancy" available for a bye-election.

The court also rejected the argument of locus standi and noted that in matters touching upon the purity of the democratic process, the court could not take a narrow and pedantic interpretation of locus standi. 

The court also noted that premature holding of bye-elections would affect the state exchequer and affect the democratic process. 

“The premature holding of bye-elections not only inflicts an enormous drain on the public exchequer funded by taxpayers, but also risks a severe constitutional deadlock by potentially yielding two validly elected representatives for a single constituency,” the court observed. 

Thus considering the submissions, the court deemed it fit to issue notice to the respondents and sought their response. The court also restrained the ECI from notifying the bye-elections to these constituencies till then. 

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V.R.Shanmuganathan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan Standing Counsel, Mr. A R.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General of India Assisted by Dr.V.Venkatesan Senior Panel Counsel, Mr. Vijay Narayan, Advocate General Assisted by Mr.Akash Government Advocate Mr.G.Masilamani, Senior Counsel for Ms.Ramya.M.B

Case Title: Venkatachalapathy v Election Commission of India 

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 311

Case No: WP No 27064 of 2026