The Madras High Court on April 28, 2026, declined to entertain a public interest petition seeking stricter conditions for candidates contesting elections from more than one constituency. The court made it clear that such directions cannot be issued in the absence of a specific legal provision.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by K. Mani, who requested a direction to the Election Commission of India to obtain a separate affidavit from candidates contesting from multiple constituencies.
The petitioner wanted candidates to formally declare that if they resign from one seat after winning, they would bear the full election expenses incurred in that constituency.
However, when the matter was taken up, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
The bench referred to Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This provision allows a candidate to contest elections from a maximum of two constituencies at the same time.
At present, the law does not impose any obligation on candidates to reimburse election expenses if they later vacate one of the seats after winning both.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, emphasized that courts cannot introduce requirements that are not part of the statute.
“The statute permits contesting from two constituencies, but there is no mandate requiring candidates to bear election expenses upon resignation,” the court noted in substance.
The judges also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, which held that allowing candidates to contest from multiple seats is a matter of legislative policy.
Quoting the top court’s reasoning, the bench observed that such policy decisions fall within Parliament’s domain and cannot be altered by judicial intervention unless they violate constitutional rights.
The court also acknowledged that the Election Commission had, in the past, suggested reforms.
It noted that the Commission had proposed either restricting candidates to one constituency or requiring them to deposit a specified amount to cover the cost of by-elections caused by resignations.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Closes PIL on ECI Memo After Withdrawal, Emphasises Fair Poll Process
Despite these recommendations, no legislative amendment has been enacted so far to give them legal effect.
The court highlighted two important points:
- Candidates can legally contest from up to two constituencies.
- There is currently no law requiring them to compensate for election expenses if they vacate a seat.
Because of this, neither the Election Commission nor the court has the authority to impose such a condition through directions or affidavits.
Concluding that the relief sought had no statutory backing, the bench refused to entertain the petition.
“We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition,” the court stated,
dismissing the case without costs.
Case Details
Case Title: K. Mani v. Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (MD) No.12161 of 2026
Judges: Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari & Justice G. Arul Murugan
Decision Date: 28 April 2026
