Click the Play button to listen to article

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to create a mechanism to ensure financial accountability of elected representatives who voluntarily and prematurely resign from their seats without legally recognized compelling circumstances [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 458].

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the relief, seeking to introduce an Election Expenditure Security to recover the cost of a bye-election and to introduce a cooling-off period to prevent elected representatives who resign soon after the elections from contesting in the same constituency, could not be granted as it was for the legislature to bring a law to that effect.

"Relief cannot be granted. It is for the legislature to legislate. We cannot legislate," the bench said, while dismissing the plea.

The public interest litigation was filed by an advocate, Suthan, seeking directions to the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer to initiate necessary legislative/regulatory measures to create a mechanism to ensure financial accountability of the MLAs who resign from their posts immediately after election without compelling reason.

The petitioner also called for introducing an Election Expenditure Security to recover the cost of the resultant bye-elections and to examine and initiate necessary legislative and/or regulatory measures to introduce a statutory disqualification or a reasonable cooling-off period to prevent elected representatives who voluntarily and prematurely resign from contesting subsequent elections for a prescribed period.

The petitioner submitted that the resignation of AIADMK MLAs immediately after the election for personal and political considerations has necessitated bye-elections, causing financial burden on the public exchequer.

The petitioner submitted that the present legal framework was silent on recovering costs from the resigning member or imposing any other form of accountability for abandoning the public mandate. He had thus filed the plea seeking to recover the expenses from the MLA who resigned.

The petitioner had also objected to ex-AIADMK MLAs in Maduranthakam and Dharapuram constituencies who resigned from AIADMK and joined TVK, re-contesting in the very same constituency from the TVK party. He had thus sought interim directions to stay the bye-elections to the two constituencies till his petition was decided.

When the matter had first come up for hearing before a bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Krishnaswamy Govindarajan, the court was not inclined to stay the bye-elections to the Maduranthakam and Dharapuram constituencies. The court had noted that since the election process had already begun, the court had limited powers to interfere with the same. The court had, however, called upon the Election Commission of India to consider the peculiar circumstance and asked why it could not frame guidelines against the same. The court also orally remarked that such conduct of resigning immediately after elections should not be a mockery of democracy.

However, when the Advocate General informed the court that the first bench was already considering a plea on the validity of accepting the resignations of AIADMK MLAs, the bench directed the matter to be posted before the same bench. 

Following this, when the matter was taken up by the first bench, the court had orally questioned the court's power to direct recovery of election costs from an MLA who resigned, in the absence of statutory law. The court had orally remarked that the matter required a change in election laws, which could be done only by Parliament. 

The court had also orally remarked that it did not have powers to direct Parliament to frame laws, recover election expenses from an MLA, or prevent an MLA from contesting again in the same constituency. 

Case Title: K Suthan v The Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 458

Case No: WP 37274 of 2026

Tags: