Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Make Candidates Contesting From Multiple Constituencies Liable For Bye-Election Costs On Resignation
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India to obtain affidavits from candidates contesting in more than one constituency, assuring that if they resign from any of the constituencies after the election, they would be liable to pay all the election expenses incurred for that particular constituency before resigning. The bench of...
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India to obtain affidavits from candidates contesting in more than one constituency, assuring that if they resign from any of the constituencies after the election, they would be liable to pay all the election expenses incurred for that particular constituency before resigning.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that as of date, there was no law in force, empowering the Election Commission of India to direct a candidate to deposit election expenses in case of resignation from one constituency. Thus, noting that such a relief could not be granted, the court dismissed the plea.
“Therefore, as on date, there is no provision empowering the Election Commission of India to direct the candidate contesting in two constituencies to deposit the election expenses in case he resigns from one constituency, after winning from both the constituencies, or to direct the candidates to file separate affidavits to bear the expenses in the event of resigning, We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is dismissed,” the court observed.
The court was hearing a petition filed by K Mani, from Madurai. In his plea, Mani submitted that it was common for candidates in some constituencies to file nominations in more than one constituency. He pointed out that after the declaration of results, if the candidate ended up winning from all constituencies, he would end up having to resign from all constituencies, except one. He added that public money was being spent unnecessarily, because of some people's personal interest and benefit.
The court noted that while Section 33(7) clause (a) and (b) provided a legal restriction on candidates from being nominated for more than two constituencies during general elections, there was no statutory mandate requiring the candidate to bear the election expense incurred when they resign from one constituency, requiring a bye-election.
The court also noted that the Election Commission, in its 2004 Proposal for Electoral Reforms, recommended a statutory amendment to restrict candidates and letting them contest in only a single constituency at a time, in an attempt to abolish the practice of multi-seat candidacy. The court noted that the ECI had also proposed to make the candidates deposit a specific sum [Rs 5,00,000 for State assembly election and Rs. 10,00,000 for election to the House of People] with the Government to cover the administrative cost of conducting bye-election triggered by the candidate's resignation in one constituency.
The court noted that no legislative amendments had been brought in yet to enact the recommendations. Thus, noting that no law existed as on date requiring candidates to deposit money, the court dismissed the plea.
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan Standing Counsel
Case Title: K Mani v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
Case No: WP(MD) No.12161 of 2026