Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Asking MLAs Who Resigned After Election To Reimburse Election Expenses; Imposes Costs

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan also imposed a cost of Rs 1 Lakh on the petitioner for seeking the same relief, which had already been dismissed by the court. The court remarked that the plea, styled as a public interest litigation, was nothing but a publicity litigation and was filed with ulterior motive.

The petition, filed by an advocate, S Kasiramalingam, sought directions to the Election Commission of India to consider his representation and, exercising powers under Article 324 of the Constitution, direct former MLAs Margatham Kumaravel, S Jayakumar, P Sathyabama, Esakki Subaya, C Vijayabaskar, and M R Vijayabaskar.

The petitioner also sought to declare that the resignation of the MLAs was not genuine and it was a betrayal of the trust and confidence of the voters, which was a breach of Article 19(1)(a) of the fundamental right of the voters.

The court noted that it had dismissed a similar plea. The bench informed the petitioner's counsel that it had given reasons for dismissing, noting that it did not have the power to issue such directions and that it was for the legislature to decide the same.

While dismissing the earlier plea, the court had noted that it could only interpret and enforce laws that exist or fill an interstitial gap by laying down guidelines until the Legislature steps in. The court added that it could not direct the legislature to pass laws on a particular subject.

In the previous plea, the petitioner had sought introduction of 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. The court had remarked that the relief was asking the court to lay down two new disqualifications in the electoral law, which was a matter of legislative policy and not judicial direction.

The bench noted that the relief sought for in the present plea was similar to the relief sought for in the earlier plea. The court was thus not inclined to entertain the same and asked the petitioner if he was willing to withdraw the plea.

However, the petitioner's counsel insisted that his case was different and submitted that the court had inherent powers to issue directions in matters where law was absent.

After hearing the petitioner for some time, the court decided to dismiss the plea and imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner, to be payable to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority. The court also directed the registry to ensure that the cost is deposited and if not, take appropriate action against the petitioner.

Case Title: S Kasiramalingam v Election Commission of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 468

Case No: WP 38452 of 2026