Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Against Six Former Legislators, Imposes Fine on Lawyer

Chennai, September 29 (Daily Kiran) : The Madras High Court imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on a Chennai lawyer on Tuesday after dismissing his public interest litigation (PIL) against six former legislators from Tamil Nadu. The lawyer, S. Kashi Ramalingam, sought to recover the costs of by-elections triggered by the resignations of these legislators and aimed to prevent them from contesting elections during the current assembly term.

The division bench, led by Chief Justice Sushruta Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, found the PIL to be an attempt at gaining publicity. They noted that a similar petition had been rejected just the previous week. In their ruling on September 24, the bench clarified that the law does not impose any financial liability or electoral restrictions on legislators who resign and wish to return through by-elections.

The earlier petition requested the court to direct the Election Commission of India to recover the by-election costs from the concerned legislators and to bar them from contesting elections for five years. However, the court stated that the Election Commission lacks the legal authority to take such actions and that it cannot be granted powers not conferred by law. The bench emphasized that if there is to be a ban on legislators resigning to change their political allegiance and immediately contesting elections in the same constituency, it would require new legislation from Parliament.

While the court acknowledged concerns about the government expenses associated with new elections, it maintained that these worries do not justify imposing restrictions through judicial orders. The ruling from September 24 stated, “The right to resign from a legislative seat is inherently part of the constitutional framework governing membership of the House and cannot be burdened with additional conditions imposed by judicial order.”

Furthermore, the court pointed out that Article 324 of the Constitution does not empower the Election Commission to add new grounds for disqualification. Therefore, the court cannot instruct the Commission to exercise powers that the law has not granted.

Ramalingam’s petition included the names of C. Vijay from Viralimalai, M.R. Vijay from Karur, S. Subaiya from Amba Samudram, P. Sathiyabama from Dharapuram, K. Maragatham Kumaravel from Madurantakam, and S. Jayakumar from Perundurai, all of whom had resigned from their assembly seats. The bench concluded that the issues raised in his petition had already been resolved in the case of Suthan, leading to the dismissal of the petition and the imposition of the fine.