Back
ECI tells no bye-elections in five TN seats until election petitions decided
The has informed the that it does not intend to conduct bye-elections for five Assembly constituencies in Tamil Nadu until the election petitions challenging the previous results are finally disposed of. The submission came in a filed before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan on Monday, . The Bench consequently extended its restraining the ECI from notifying the bye-polls until , when the matter is scheduled for .
The constituencies at issue are Tiruchi East, Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai, and Karur. All five seats fell vacant after the elected MLAs—including Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay—tendered their resignations following the general elections. However, election petitions challenging the victory of the returned candidates in each of these constituencies were already pending before the High Court, with petitioners seeking a declaration under , to be declared the rightful winners.
The Background of the Dispute
The was filed by one K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli, who argued that the vacancies arising from the resignations did not constitute "" for the purpose of holding bye-elections under Section 151A of the Act. His counsel, , contended that if bye-elections were conducted while the election petitions were , a paradoxical situation could arise: two candidates might simultaneously claim to represent the same constituency—one through the general election and another through the . Such a scenario, he argued, would not only waste public funds but also undermine the democratic process.
The court had previously agreed with this reasoning, observing that would affect the state exchequer and the democratic fabric. On , the Bench had passed an restraining the ECI from notifying bye-polls in the five constituencies until July 31, later extended to August 24. With the ECI's formal response now on record, the court has once again prolonged the restraint.
ECI's Formal Position
In the
filed through Tamil Nadu Chief Electoral Officer Archana Patnaik, the ECI stated unequivocally:
"The commission does not propose to announce or notify bye-elections until the election petitions challenging the election of the returned candidates in the five constituencies are decided."
The ECI rooted its stance in well-established jurisprudence. It cited the landmark judgment in D. Sanjeevayya v. & Ors (), where the Apex Court held that the ECI is not bound to hold a forthwith when an relating to the constituency is pending. The had observed that if an election petitioner had not only challenged the victory of the but also moved an application under Section 84 of the RP Act to declare himself/herself as the , the conduct of a before disposal of the petition could give rise to to the same seat.
The ECI's affidavit further noted that inserted Section 151A into the RP Act in , which prescribes a mandatory period of six months for conducting bye-elections once a vacancy arises. However, this provision came up for consideration before the in
Election Commission of India v. Telangana Rashtra Samithi
(
). In that case, the top court expressly held that Section 151A cannot be interpreted to render Section 84 ineffective. Both provisions must be construed harmoniously. Consequently,
"a constituency in which an
seeking a
is already pending, is not available for
on occurrence of a
."
The Legal Framework: Harmonizing Section 84 and Section 151A
The interplay between Section 84 and Section 151A lies at the heart of this litigation. Section 84 of the RP Act allows an election petitioner to claim a declaration that he/she, rather than the , was duly elected. Section 151A, on the other hand, requires the ECI to fill a by holding a within six months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy.
The ECI, guided by the 's directive, has now adopted a coherent position: where a Section 84 petition is pending, the constituency is effectively "unavailable" for a because the true representative of the electorate remains in dispute. To hold a in such circumstances would risk creating —a scenario that the ECI rightly seeks to avoid.
The ECI's affidavit also emphasized that the resignations of the five MLAs—C. Joseph Vijay (Tiruchi East), S. Jeyakumar (Perundurai), E. Subaya alias Esakki Subaya (Ambasamudram), C. Vijayabaskar (Viralimalai), and M.R. Vijayabhaskar (Karur)—did not change the legal position. Since election petitions with Section 84 claims were already on file before the resignations, the until those petitions are finally adjudicated.
Court's Observations and Future Proceedings
After taking the on file, the Division Bench extended the passed on , restraining the ECI from notifying the bye-polls until . The court has directed the parties to complete pleadings by that date and has scheduled the matter for . The ECI's explicit assurance that it will not proceed with bye-elections until the election petitions are decided has likely paved the way for a more streamlined resolution.
The court earlier observed that would affect the state exchequer and "affect the democratic process." By extending the , the bench has effectively reinforced the principle that electoral processes must not race ahead of judicial scrutiny. This approach safeguards both public money and the integrity of representation.
Implications for Election Law and Practice
The ECI's decision to align its actions with the Sanjeevayya and Telangana Rashtra Samithi precedents is significant for election law practitioners and political parties alike. It clarifies that the mandatory timeline under Section 151A is not absolute when an under Section 84 is pending. The ECI is not merely empowered but obliged to defer bye-elections in such situations to avoid potential electoral chaos.
For the legal community, the case underscores the importance of scrutinizing the nature of election petitions. A petitioner who merely challenges the result but does not claim the seat may not block a . However, a Section 84 claim for a declaration of being the true winner effectively freezes the seat's availability until the petition is decided.
This development also sends a strong message to political actors: resigning from a seat while an is pending does not automatically clear the path for a fresh election. The pending dispute over who was properly elected must be resolved first. The ECI's stance may discourage strategic resignations designed to trigger bypolls while avoiding pending legal challenges.
Conclusion
As the prepares for the on , the ECI's measured approach has already been vindicated. By agreeing to hold off on bye-elections in the five Tamil Nadu constituencies, the Commission has demonstrated fidelity to judicial precedent and respect for the . The case stands as a reminder that electoral mechanics must yield to —especially when the very outcome of a previous election is under judicial scrutiny.
For litigants and lawyers, offers a clear map of how Section 84 and Section 151A interact, and when a vacancy is truly "available." In an era where election petitions are increasingly common, this judgment may well become a cornerstone of Indian election jurisprudence.
