Back
Tamil Nadu CM Joseph Vijay Moves to Vacate Stay on Five Bye-Elections
The is poised to adjudicate a pivotal election law dispute as Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Joseph Vijay has filed a counter affidavit seeking the vacation of an interim stay on by-elections in five assembly constituencies. The Chief Minister argues that continuing the stay would disenfranchise lakhs of voters, depriving them of democratically elected representatives for an indefinite period. The matter arises from a filed by advocate , which challenges the validity of the vacancies resulting from resignations by the returned candidates.
Background of the Legal Challenge
The controversy centers on five assembly constituencies—Tiruchirappalli (East), Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai, and Karur—where the elected MLAs resigned shortly after the April 2026 state elections. Chief Minister Vijay, who won from both Tiruchirappalli (East) and Perambur, resigned from the former as required by law. Similarly, former AIADMK MLAs M.R. Vijayabaskar (Karur), C. Vijayabaskar (Viralimalai), S. Jayakumar (Perundurai), and Esaki Subbaiya (Ambasamudram) also stepped down, creating vacancies that under , obligate the to fill by holding by-elections within six months.
However, the petitioner Venkatachalapathy moved the High Court seeking a declaration that these vacancies do not constitute “” under Section 151-A, arguing that pending election petitions challenging the original results could lead to a scenario where two candidates claim the same seat. On , the First Bench of Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan restrained the ECI from issuing any notification for by-elections in these constituencies until further orders. The interim order was later extended to . In response, the ECI informed the court that it had no intention to conduct bypolls until the election petitions were decided.
CM Vijay’s Counter Arguments
In his detailed counter affidavit, Chief Minister Vijay contends that the PIL is devoid of public interest and is driven by an ulterior motive to protect a single individual—the election petitioner—at the expense of the democratic rights of lakhs of constituents. “The writ petitioner is only seeking to protect the interests of the election petitioner, in the event of they are succeeding to get the relief specified in section 84, such a relief will in fact protect the interest of one individual who could not get elected. But the stoppage of bye-election will deprive the several lakhs of people in these constituencies from having democratically elected MLAs to represent their interest, cause and grievance that too for an indefinite period of time. Hence, the writ petition is against the ,” the counter states.
Vijay further argues that the petitioner lacks to file the writ, as he is neither a voter in any of the affected constituencies nor the person who filed the election petitions. “Even assuming without admitting that, if at all anyone may have the right to seek a relief postponing the bye election to the vacant constituencies, it will be the election petitioners due to the alleged possibility of two elected/returned candidates to one seat, if the election petitioner was successful in getting further relief. However, no application seems to have been filed by the election petitioner in respect of Tiruchirappalli (East) Assembly Constituency. Hence, the petitioner was waging a '' and it was liable to be dismissed ,” he submitted.
Timing of Resignation and Election Petitions
A critical point raised by the Chief Minister’s legal team is that the election petition challenging his victory in Tiruchirappalli (East) was filed on —well after he had resigned on , and the resignation was accepted by the Speaker. “On the day he resigned and the Speaker accepted it, there was no election case pending in the court,” the petition stated. This, they argue, means that the election petition cannot be maintained against a seat that was already vacant, and consequently cannot justify a blanket stay on bypolls.
Vijay emphasized that his resignation was a statutory obligation after winning two seats, and that compliance with the law should not be leveraged to indefinitely delay the democratic process. “After winning from both Perambur and Thiruchirappalli East constituency, he was statutorily required to resign from one constituency and considering the same, he resigned from Thiruchirappalli constituency. Compliance with law cannot be taken as a ground to stop the bye-election to the said constituency,” the counter affidavit states.
Legal Analysis: Balancing Individual Rights and Public Interest
At the heart of this dispute lies a tension between the rights of an election petitioner to have his challenge adjudicated without prejudice, and the collective right of the electorate to have functioning representatives. Section 151-A of the RPA mandates that vacancies be filled within six months, a provision designed to prevent prolonged parliamentary or legislative vacancies. However, when an election petition is pending, courts have sometimes stayed by-elections to avoid the complication of a returned candidate being unseated after a bypoll has already taken place.
The ’s initial restraint order acknowledged this potential conflict. Yet, as Chief Minister Vijay points out, the election petitions were filed after the resignations, and no interim application was moved by the election petitioners themselves to postpone the bypolls. This raises questions about the standing of a third-party PIL to seek such relief.
Broader Impact on Election Law Practice
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for how courts treat PILs in election matters. If the High Court vacates the stay, it would reinforce the principle that the right to representation outweighs speculative future claims, especially where no interim protection has been sought by the directly affected parties. Conversely, a continuation of the stay may embolden litigants to use election petitions as a tool to delay by-elections, potentially leaving constituencies unrepresented for months.
Legal experts suggest that the court will need to carefully examine whether the pending election petitions have any real bearing on the vacancies. Since the resignations were voluntary and not the result of election petitions, the vacancies are “clear” for the purpose of Section 151-A. The argument that an election petition could retroactively affect a vacancy that arose before its filing is legally tenuous.
Conclusion
As the prepares to hear the matter, all eyes are on the bench of Chief Justice Dharmadhikari and Justice Arul Murugan. The Chief Minister has sought not only the dismissal of the PIL but also exemplary costs against the petitioner, whom he accuses of waging a . The case, Venkatachalapathy v. Election Commission of India (WP No. 27064 of 2026), represents a clash between individual legal maneuvering and the fundamental democratic principle that every citizen deserves a voice in the legislature. Whether the court prioritizes the expeditious filling of vacancies or the cautious preservation of pending election challenges will shape the election landscape in Tamil Nadu for the foreseeable future.
