New Delhi, October 27, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Centre, the Election Commission of India (ECI) and other parties on a plea seeking recovery of public expenditure on bye-elections from legislators who voluntarily resign without compelling reasons and subsequently contest elections again.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice to the Union government, the ECI, the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu and six former MLAs from the state, among others.
The petition, filed by advocate K. Suthan, challenges a September 24 judgment of the Madras High Court dismissing his public interest litigation seeking financial accountability for legislators whose resignations trigger bye-elections.
The petitioner has sought an “Election Expenditure Security” mechanism requiring legislators who resign without a legally recognised compelling reason to deposit an amount equivalent to the cost of the resulting bye-election before contesting again. He has also sought a five-year disqualification from contesting elections for such legislators.
According to the plea, six AIADMK legislators resigned within weeks of the Tamil Nadu Assembly election results being declared on May 4 and subsequently joined the ruling party. The petition states that disqualification proceedings had been initiated against some of them over allegations that they voted against their party whip during a confidence motion.
The petitioner contends that the resignations enabled the legislators to avoid the pending proceedings and contest again under a different political banner, while imposing additional costs on the public exchequer.
The plea also cites the ECI’s 2004 electoral reform proposals, which reportedly recommended making candidates responsible for bye-election expenses when they vacate their seats.
Dismissing the original PIL, the Madras High Court held that the proposed financial security requirement and five-year disqualification would create new substantive restrictions that fall within the legislative domain.
“The right to resign from a legislative seat is itself a facet of the constitutional scheme governing membership of a House and cannot be burdened with extra-statutory conditions by judicial order,” the High Court observed.
The Supreme Court’s notice seeks responses from the parties; the reliefs requested by the petitioner have not been granted merely by issuing notice.
FOLLOW NOW
