Madras High Court Refuses Interim Relief To Political Parties Delisted By ECI

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that if any interim relief was to be granted, it would amount to allowing the main prayer itself. The court thus dismissed the interim relief plea filed by the parties and refused to stay ECI's decision or revoke the registration of the parties till the disposal of the case.

The parties – Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam, Manithaneya Makkal Katchi, and Manithaneya Jananayaga Katchi had approached the High Court challenging the order passed by the ECI on September 19, 2025, delisting 474 Registered Unrecognised Political Parties (RUPPs) and to revoke the deregistration/delisting of the parties.

On September 19, 2025 the ECI had delisted the political parties arguing that the political parties had not contested any elections to the Lok Sabha, any State Legislative Assembly Elections or any by-elections for the past 6 years i.e., from 2019.

Challenging this order, the parties argued that the order is ultra vires, non-est in law and unconstitutional for non-application of mind. It was argued that the order was passed in a mechanical manner without any individual appraisal of each political party's case. The parties also argued that the order was passed without affording a personal hearing to the parties and without considering the reply that was given to the show cause notice issued by the ECI. Thus, it was argued that the order was passed without following the due process of law.

The parties mainly argued that the ECI did not have statutory authority under the Representation of the People Act 1951 to deregister or delist a political party, except when the registration was obtained by fraud, violation of Section 29A(9), or where the party was banned under the law. It was argued that in the present case, none of these conditions would apply to the political parties, making the ECI's action non est in law.

TMMK pointed out that as per the guidelines issued by the ECI, if any party had not contested elections for 6 years, it was to be delisted from the list of registered parties. It was argued that the party had contested elections in alliance with other political parties and under their symbols. The party pointed out that the guidelines did not specify that the RUPPs must contest their own name and symbol. Thus, the party argued that when the guideline was silent about alliances, the party's previous alliances could not be excluded.

MMK argued that it was registered in the year 2009, and thus, the guidelines that came into effect only in 2014, would not be applicable to the party and it should not be required to contest elections continuously for 6 years. The party also argued that the order was passed by the Secretary of ECI who was not the competent authority under the Act to pass orders regarding deregistration of the party.

Case Title: Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam v The Chief Election Commissioner and another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 74

Case No: WP 45322 of 2025