The Madras High Court has temporarily restrained the Election Commission of India (ECI) from issuing notifications for bye-elections to five vacant Tamil Nadu Assembly constituencies, observing that important legal questions arise when election petitions challenging the returned candidates are already pending before the court.
The interim order was passed on July 10, 2026, by a Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan while hearing a writ petition filed by advocate and registered voter K. Venkatachalapathy.
Background of the Case
The petitioner challenged the proposed filling of vacancies created after several MLAs elected in the May 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections resigned from their seats. According to the petition, election petitions questioning the validity of those elections had already been filed before the High Court, with the petitioners also seeking declarations that they themselves, or other candidates, be declared duly elected.
The petitioner argued that treating these seats as "clear vacancies" under Section 151-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, could create an anomalous situation. If bye-elections were held before the election petitions were decided and the court later declared another candidate elected in the original election, two persons could end up claiming representation of the same constituency.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
On the other hand, the State contended that in some constituencies no election petitions were pending on the date the resignations were accepted, making the vacancies immediately available for filling. The Election Commission also argued that several election petitions had not yet crossed the stage of scrutiny and maintainability, and therefore could not automatically prevent the conduct of bye-elections.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench examined earlier Supreme Court decisions, including D. Sanjeevayya v. Election Tribunal, Election Commission of India v. Telangana Rashtra Samithi, and Pramod Laxman Gudadhe v. Election Commission of India.
Referring to those rulings, the Bench noted that although a resignation creates a casual vacancy, it does not necessarily become a vacancy available for immediate bye-election if an election petition seeking composite relief is pending.
The Bench observed that,
"the occurrence of a casual vacancy... does not automatically render that seat a 'clear or available vacancy' for the mandatory holding of a bye-election."
It further stated that Supreme Court precedents indicate that where an election petition seeks a declaration that another candidate be declared elected, the vacancy cannot prima facie be treated as a clear vacancy for conducting a bye-election.
Rejecting the objection regarding the petitioner's locus standi, the court held that issues affecting the purity of the democratic process deserve a broader approach. The Bench observed that
"the premature holding of bye-elections not only inflicts an enormous drain on the public exchequer... but also risks a severe constitutional deadlock by potentially yielding two validly elected representatives for a single constituency."
However, the court also clarified that questions relating to the timing of vacancies, the filing of election petitions, and the maintainability of those petitions require detailed examination before a final decision can be reached.
Court's Decision
The High Court issued notice to the respondents who had not yet entered appearance and directed all respondents to file comprehensive counter-affidavits within three weeks.
As an interim measure, the Bench restrained the Election Commission of India from issuing any notification for bye-elections in respect of the constituencies where the returned candidates resigned, as mentioned in the writ petition. The matter has been posted for further hearing on July 31, 2026.
Case Details:
Case Title: K. Venkatachalapathy v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. No. 27064 of 2026
Judge: Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan
Decision Date: July 10, 2026
