Madras High Court Waives ₹1 Lakh Costs Imposed On Lawyer Over Plea Against MLAs Resigning After Elections
Upasana Sajeev
28 Oct 2026 6:20 PM IST
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (October 28) waived ₹1 lakh costs imposed on a lawyer for filing a plea seeking directions to make MLAs, who resigned soon after elections, reimburse their election expenses.The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan was inclined to review the order, with respect to the imposition of costs, taking note of the...
This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers
Subscribe Premium 
INR 1099+GST
Your support helps us to bring you more content at
an affordable subscription scheme !!!
All payment options available
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (October 28) waived ₹1 lakh costs imposed on a lawyer for filing a plea seeking directions to make MLAs, who resigned soon after elections, reimburse their election expenses.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan was inclined to review the order, with respect to the imposition of costs, taking note of the petitioner's submission that he had intended to withdraw the plea but could not make submissions properly since he was appearing through video conferencing. The court was also inclined to do away with the cost considering that the petitioner was an advocate practicing in the High Court.
“The writ petition was filed for a relief which had already been disposed of in detail by the court with the same parties. The petitioner was put on notice that since the issue was already decided against the same respondents, the petitioner need not argue. However, the petitioner persistently argued and we had imposed costs…Considering the submissions made and the fact that the petitioner is a practicing advocate of this court, we review the earlier order, in particular para 5, imposing cost of Rs 1 Lakh on the petitioner,” the court said.
The advocate, S Kasiramalingam, had approached the court seeking directions to the ECI to direct MLAs who resigned after elections to reimburse the election expenses. 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 rights of the voters.
It may be noted that the High Court had dismissed a similar plea earlier. 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.
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.
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.
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.
