Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ., G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
K.Mani, S/o. Kannan – Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Election Commissioner – Respondent
WP(MD) No.12161 of 2026
Decided On : 28-04-2026
For the Respondents: Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan Standing Counsel
No statutory mandate requires multi-constituency candidates to bear bye-election expenses on resignation; authorities lack power to demand assuring affidavits absent legislative amendment.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 33(7) - Permits nomination as candidate from up to two constituencies in general elections to House of the People or State Legislative Assembly - No statutory mandate requiring candidates to bear election expenses incurred upon voluntary resignation from one constituency after winning both - Absent legislative amendment, no authority to require separate affidavits assuring payment of such expenses prior to resignation. (Paras 3, 4, 7)
(B) Permitting contest from multiple seats is matter of legislative policy - Constitutional validity upheld as not manifestly arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 19 - Recommendations to restrict to single seat or mandate deposit for bye-election costs not enacted into law. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
Petition filed pro bono publico seeking mandamus directing obtaining of separate affidavits from candidates nominating for more than one constituency, assuring liability to pay election expenses for resigned constituency before voluntary resignation post-election.
Findings of Court:
No representation by petitioner - No statutory provision or authority exists to impose such requirement - Petition not entertained.
Issues: Whether direction can issue to obtain affidavits from multi-constituency candidates assuring payment of election expenses upon post-election resignation.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 33(7) imposes restriction but no expense liability - Matter for legislative choice; recommendations unimplemented preclude judicial mandate for affidavits or deposits. (Paras 4, 5, 7) Result : Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
ORDER :
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, J.
There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has come up with this pro bono publico petition seeking issuance of a mandamus directing the first respondent to obtain separate affidavits from candidates who are willing to file nomination, or who filed nomination for more than one constituency, assuring that if he/she resigns voluntarily from any one of the constituency after election, he/she will be liable to pay all the election expenses incurred for the particular constituency before resigning.
3. Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 reads thus:
“33. Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination.—
(1) to (6) ...
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or in any other provisions of this Act, a person shall not be nominated as a candidate for election,—
(a) in the case of a general election to the House of the People (whether or not held simultaneously from all Parliamentary constituencies), from more than two Parliamentary constituencies;
(b) in the case of a general election to the Legislative Assembly of a State (whether or not held simultaneously from all Assembly constituencies), from more than two Assembly constituencies in that State;
(c) in the case of a biennial election to the Legislative Council of a State having such Council, from more than two Council constituencies in the State;
(d) in the case of a biennial election to the Council of States for filling two or more seats allotted to a State, for filling more than two such seats;
(e) in the case of bye-elections to the House of the People from two or more Parliamentary constituencies which are held simultaneously, from more than two such Parliamentary constituencies;
(f) in the case of bye-elections to the Legislative Assembly of a State from two or more Assembly constituencies which are held simultaneously, from more than two such Assembly constituencies;
(g) in the case of bye-elections to the Council of States for filling two or more seats allotted to a State, which are held simultaneously, for filling more than two such seats;
(h) in the case of bye-elections to the Legislative Council of a State having such Council from two or more Council constituencies which are held simultaneously, from more than two such Council constituencies.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, two or more bye-elections shall be deemed to be held simultaneously where the notification calling such bye- elections are issued by the Election Commission under sections 147, 149, 150 or, as the case may be, 151 on the same date.”
[emphasis supplied]
4. Under the provisions of Section 33(7) of the Act, specifically Clauses (a) and (b), a legal restriction is placed on electoral candidates prohibiting them from being nominated for more than two constituencies simultaneously during a general election, whether for the House of the People or a State Legislative Assembly. However, there is no statutory mandate requiring such candidate to bear the election expenses incurred when they resign from a constituency after winning in both the constituencies.
5. It needs to be accentuated at this juncture that when the constitutional validity of Section 33(7) of the Act was challenged before the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, (2023) 5 SCC 668, it was observed thus:
11. A statutory provision can be challenged before the Court either on the ground that it has been made by a legislature which lacks legislative competence to enact a law or on the ground that there is a violation of a Fundamental Right in Part III of the Constitution. The former is not in issue.
12. Permitting a candidate to contest from more than one seat in a Parliamentary election or at an election to the State Legislative Assembly is a matter of legislative policy. It is a matter pertaining to legislative policy since, ultimately, Parliament determines whether political democracy in the
