The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition seeking an election expenditure security mechanism for legislators who voluntarily resign and subsequently contest the bye-election triggered by their resignation. The case concerns the use of public funds to conduct repeated elections.
In K Suthan v. Union of India and Others, the petitioner challenged a Madras High Court order dismissing his plea for an election expenditure security mechanism and a five-year disqualification for legislators who resign without compelling reasons.
The petition referred to six AIADMK members who reportedly resigned shortly after the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly election results were declared, necessitating bye-elections in their constituencies.
The petitioner argued that taxpayers should not bear the cost of another election arising from a legislator's voluntary decision to vacate a seat.
The proposed mechanism would require a legislator who caused a bye-election through voluntary resignation to deposit an amount equivalent to the election expenditure. The deposit would be refundable if the candidate won and forfeited if the candidate lost.
The petitioner raised the question of whether such a requirement could operate as a regulatory condition rather than a disqualification under Article 191 of the Constitution.
He also questioned whether the public trust doctrine extends to the electoral mandate and public money spent on elections.
The Madras High Court had observed that it could not convert an executive or legislative option into a judicial command. Challenging that decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice to the Union of India, the Election Commission of India, the Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu and other respondents, seeking their responses.
The Court's issuance of notice does not determine the merits of the petition.
