Law & Justice
Madras High Court Judge Questions Re-election of Resigned MLAs, Suggests ECI Guidelines
Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the Madras High Court stated on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, that an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) resigning to recontest for another political party in a subsequent bye-election could be seen as an insult to voters. Presiding over the second Division Bench with Justice K. Govindarajan, Justice Subramaniam questioned why the Election Commission of India (ECI) should not review this issue and establish guidelines under Article 324 of the Constitution to prevent such practices. These oral observations were made during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Chennai-based advocate K. Suthan. The PIL sought to prevent legislators from resigning and then seeking re-election in the same constituencies after joining different political parties. Senior counsel R. Singaravelan, representing the petitioner, informed the court that six All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) MLAs in Tamil Nadu resigned after this year's general elections and subsequently joined the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). Two of these former MLAs, Maragatham Kumaravel and P. Sathyabama, have been named as TVK candidates for the bye-elections in the Madurantakam and Dharapuram constituencies, vacancies created by their own resignations. The court was also informed that the ECI had only notified bye-elections for these two constituencies. The counsel argued that if this practice of legislators resigning to recontest for other parties remains unregulated, it could lead to mass resignations and significant public expenditure for bye-elections. Justice Subramaniam acknowledged the validity of these arguments, noting that while legislators cannot be prevented from resigning, the issue arises when they seek re-election to fill the vacancy they created. He suggested that either Parliament or the ECI should examine this situation. However, Advocate General Vijay Narayan informed the second Bench that the first Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, had already reserved orders on a writ petition challenging the acceptance of the six MLAs' resignations. Consequently, Justice Subramaniam's Bench adjourned the PIL plea to Friday, September 18, for it to be heard by the first Bench upon the Chief Justice's return from the Madurai Bench. The Advocate General also stated that current law does not prohibit resigned MLAs from recontesting in bye-elections, and therefore, the PIL petitioner's request to halt the bye-elections in Madurantakam and Dharapuram constituencies could not be granted.